[English] Let's think : By Dr.King, Swami Satyapriya

Dr.King, Swami Satyapriya
  • 0.0 (0)
  • Spirituality
  • Updated Biweekly

Explore science, philosophy, and spirituality for a deeper life. Get motivational insights and healthy thoughts for purposeful, better living.

  1. 2d ago

    [English] Can AI Become a Threat to Humans?

    window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);} gtag('js', new Date()); gtag('config', 'G-8HXGBD0CVC');     [Preview books]  [Borrow books]   [Pause]       According to estimates by organizations such as Goldman-Sachs, AI could automate around 300 million full-time jobs globally. They have stated that nearly two-thirds of the jobs currently existing in America and Europe could be affected by AI automation to one degree or another. The International-Labour-Organization (ILO) takes a somewhat more conservative view and estimates that approximately 2.3 percent of global employment, or about 75 million jobs, is at risk of complete automation. At the same time, labor researchers have observed that large-scale sudden layoffs are unlikely. Instead, hiring for entry-level white-collar positions and workers engaged in physical "grunt work" may slow down. Nevertheless, some doomsday-prophets have already begun predicting how AI will eventually overpower humanity itself! Can AI ever surpass humans?   var hello = document.getElementById("Hello"); hello.addEventListener("ended", function(){ var audio = document.getElementById('Audio'); audio.play(); }); var audio = document.getElementById("Audio"); audio.addEventListener("ended", function(){ var thankyou = document.getElementById('ThankYou'); thankyou.play(); }); document.getElementById("playAudio").addEventListener("click", function(){ var audio = document.getElementById('Audio'); if(this.className != "is-paused"){ this.className = "is-paused"; this.innerHTML = "Play"; audio.pause(); }else{ this.className = "is-playing"; this.innerHTML = "Pause"; audio.play(); } }); Certainly, in some specific roles, yes. AI systems are trained on vast reservoirs of knowledge that no single human being could ever master alone. They possess a tireless ability to ingest enormous amounts of data, process it, and produce results at speeds that humans cannot even think at. But does that make them equal to humans, or superior to them? I do not think so. At least not in their present form. In their current state, they are highly mechanical. They perform tasks that humans find extremely boring or exhausting, using immense computing power and without any conscious purpose. Today's AI can do an excellent job of predicting the correct answer based on patterns. However, as I discussed in previous episodes, it does not possess the ability to truly "understand" what it is inferring. Nor does it have any motivation for the tasks it performs. It has no intention of surpassing humans. Nor is it currently equipped to do so. No matter how vast its knowledge may appear, it is limited to information that is publicly available in documented form. This represents only a tiny fraction of what humanity has accumulated over millions of years, across countless languages and under diverse living conditions. It would not be wrong to say that AI can never truly become equal to humans in this respect. Therefore, the fear that AI will independently take control of humanity, as portrayed in science-fiction stories, is merely a fictional fear. However, yes, as I listed earlier, there are limited risks. Customer service representatives, data-entry clerks, medical transcriptionists, junior software developers, administrative assistants, and bookkeepers are among those who are more vulnerable than others. Another large community that is being affected consists of translators and voice actors. This is because current AI systems are exceptionally proficient at text-to-text manipulation. As a result, publishers are aggressively pushing for AI integration. According to a survey conducted by the Society of Authors, more than one-third of translators have already lost work because of generative AI. Many literary translators are being asked to shift toward "Machine Translation Post-Editing." This involves correcting awkward AI-translated text. However, these translators often receive only a small fraction of the per-word translation fees they once earned. The development of highly reliable and emotionally expressive text-to-speech models has significantly disrupted the voice-over industry. Before the advent of AI, this was an extremely lucrative field for professional voice actors. These voice artists often charged hundreds of dollars per finished hour of audio. Most small authors could never afford to hire them. Some narrated their own books, while others simply watched helplessly. Now, because of AI intervention, considerable unrest has emerged within the voice-acting community. Many feel that their very existence is under threat. Supported by their forums and unions, they appear to be attempting to prevent AI from entering the field. There was a time when an author had to struggle for months to translate and narrate a book in another language. Today, AI can accomplish the same task in just a few hours. That is what has created the fear of AI. However, such an attitude only restricts the market. If handled properly, it could bring about a major transformation in the publishing industry, which has long been waiting for lower-cost alternatives. Just imagine. Instead of a good book being confined to a single language, it could reach millions of people who speak different languages. That would be a revolution in the dissemination of knowledge. Considering the growing popularity of audiobooks, the entry of AI into the audiobook production pipeline could be a tremendous blessing. Not only would it reduce the monopoly of a small number of voice artists who charge substantial fees, but it would also make books available to a much wider audience. Yes, I can understand the fears of these professionals. But can AI truly replace them? No matter how smart current AI systems may appear, they still cannot match human-level precision in either linguistic perfection or the subtle expression of emotions. There will always be demand for top-level voice artists. Best-selling authors and those who can afford them will continue to hire them. Most authors could never justify hiring them because of their high fees, and because subscription-based stores often pay such tiny pool shares that the economics simply did not work. These authors may now turn to AI and find a way to sustain themselves. After all, it is not only voice artists who need to survive. Authors who previously had no option but to pay expensive voice-acting fees also need to survive. As the audiobook industry continues to grow, good voice artists will find more opportunities as well. In the long run, they have little reason to believe that they are truly under threat. There are also frequent complaints that translation professionals have been severely affected by AI. Many of them are said to have been reduced to tasks such as proofreading, while AI performs the primary translation work. Naturally, they are paid less than they were before. However, as AI translates more books, these proofreaders will also receive more work. The overall volume of work matters. Needless to say, both authors and readers stand to benefit from this. Therefore, instead of fighting against a phenomenon that appears to be inevitable, it is better to make the best possible use of technology. In the long run, that will help everyone. My point is that instead of focusing excessively on the immediate effects of AI, we should pay more attention to the long-term dangers that AI could create in the hands of a small number of self-serving individuals. The real danger does not come from the technology itself. Rather, it comes from the misuse of that technology by human beings. Whether it is communication, energy supply chains, essential services, or countless other sectors, the rapid penetration of AI could become a genuine threat if it falls into the wrong hands. AI is like a sharp knife. In the hands of a skilled surgeon, a sharp knife can save lives. In the hands of a master chef, it can create delicious meals. In the hands of a great sculptor, it can contribute to magnificent works of art. But if it falls into the wrong hands, it can cause destruction. That is what we should be far more concerned about.    -------------------------------------------------------------------- If this  resonated with you, I invite you to join my weekly readership. I publish a new deep-dive every Saturday, moving beyond the surface to look at the questions that truly matter. No paywalls, no "bait"—just a direct share from my mind to yours. Click to subscribe.        Haga clic para español Klicken Sie hier für die deutsche Version हिंदी के लिए क्लिक करें తెలుగు కోసం క్లిక్ చేయండి ಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕ್ಲಿಕ್ ಮಾಡಿ    © Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2026 p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; direction: ltr; color: rgb(0, 0, 10); line-height: 120%; text-align: justify; }p.western { font-family: "Arial", serif; font-size: 14pt; }p.cjk { font-size: 14pt; }p.ctl { font-size: 14pt; } You can borrow audio books directly from the author at https://tinyurl.com/mylibrary1234 at highly affordable prices.

  2. Jun 20

    [English] Do AI Systems Really Possess Consciousness?

    window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);} gtag('js', new Date()); gtag('config', 'G-8HXGBD0CVC');     [Preview books]  [Borrow books]   [Pause]       This very question caused a former Google employee named Blake Lemoine to lose both his job and his reputation. You have probably read about it. In 2022, while testing one of Google's AI systems called Lamda, Blake felt that the AI was conscious. He did not stop there. Instead, he began advocating for the rights of that AI. That eventually cost him his job. Before talking about the consciousness of AI systems, let us first understand our own conscious experience.   var hello = document.getElementById("Hello"); hello.addEventListener("ended", function(){ var audio = document.getElementById('Audio'); audio.play(); }); var audio = document.getElementById("Audio"); audio.addEventListener("ended", function(){ var thankyou = document.getElementById('ThankYou'); thankyou.play(); }); document.getElementById("playAudio").addEventListener("click", function(){ var audio = document.getElementById('Audio'); if(this.className != "is-paused"){ this.className = "is-paused"; this.innerHTML = "Play"; audio.pause(); }else{ this.className = "is-playing"; this.innerHTML = "Pause"; audio.play(); } }); How we acquire conscious experience has long been a puzzle that troubled neuroscientists. When modern tools such as functional MRI scanners were invented, neuroscientists became capable of explaining various perceptual processes of the human brain. They could identify the precise locations in the brain responsible for specific perceptions. However, in the beginning, there was little clarity about how complex experiences, which may involve regions distributed throughout the brain, are actually realized. For example, suppose you are looking at a tree. You immediately recognize it as a particular species of tree. Neuroscientists were able to point to specific regions of the brain that recognize the leaves of the tree, its fruits, its trunk, and so on. But your actual experience is processed using various regions of the brain. Yet there is no single specific region in the brain that assembles the complete image of the tree and delivers to you the experience, "Ah! That is a mango tree!" Neuroscientists called this problem the "Binding Problem." In other words, it is the problem of assembling scattered pieces of information distributed throughout the brain and fitting them together into a coherent whole. In the latter part of the twentieth century, an American neuroscientist named Bernard Baars proposed a theory called the "Global Workspace Theory" to explain this phenomenon. The theory was highly metaphorical. Baars' metaphor attracted considerable criticism because it seemed to imply the existence of a separate entity that undergoes experience. Scientists do not accept the existence of any such mysterious force. Later, a revised theory known as the "Global Neuronal Workspace Theory" emerged. Today it is widely accepted as an explanation for our conscious experiences. However, this explanation did not satisfy cognitive philosophers such as David Chalmers. He argued that, neuroscientists had solved only an "easy problem" of consciousness. Many fascinating aspects of human experience, he maintained, still remain unexplained. He referred to them as the "Hard Problem of Consciousness." This tug-of-war continued. Neuroscientists claimed that they could explain everything, while philosophers such as Chalmers challenged them by arguing that their explanations were still incomplete. I am not entirely sure how philosophers such as Chalmers define the term "consciousness." In one of his lectures, Chalmers describes consciousness as an inner movie that is continuously playing. He argues that it is a subjective experience. According to him, it cannot be explained in terms of any activity of the brain. Before deciding how right Chalmers is, let us consider a few facts. The Global Neuronal Workspace Theory is capable of explaining how the brain integrates information distributed within itself. Therefore, it appears that the brain possesses at least the capacity to generate some form of conscious experience. By implanting electrodes into certain regions of the brain and stimulating them electromagnetically, it is possible to induce specific experiences. A person can also undergo a variety of experiences by consuming certain psychoactive substances. The brain mechanisms behind these phenomena are fairly well understood. This means that the brain can serve as a vehicle of consciousness. Some researchers have found that intense belief can create specific experiences in the brain even without dependence on any external object. In certain temples of South India, devoted worshippers pierce their tongues. They suspend themselves from poles using hooks driven deep into their backs. Yet they remain immersed in spiritual experiences without any sensation of pain. It has been found that, in such situations, the brain produces chemicals similar to opiates. This means that the brain can radically alter experiences in ways we might not expect. When the same brain is placed under general anesthesia, however, the person becomes completely incapable of experiencing anything at all. This indicates that the brain plays a central role in conscious experience. If the brain is not active, a person cannot have any experience—whether subjective or otherwise. The implications of all these observations are: • The brain is capable of generating conscious experience by integrating external inputs. Moreover, its mechanisms are now reasonably well understood. • Even in the complete absence of sensory inputs, the brain can generate experiences with the help of external substances or methods. • Beyond both external and internal inputs, the brain can modify experiences based on its own internal state. • Consciousness cannot arise without a functioning brain. Are these observations not sufficient to conclude that what we call subjective experience, occurs within the brain itself? But Chalmers does not agree. He firmly believes that, "These explanations describe only how the brain functions, but they fail to explain subjective experience." He is searching for a mysterious explanation that lies beyond the brain. If Chalmers were to broaden his inquiry somewhat, and speak about meditative experiences, I might agree with him. The highest meditative experiences occur when one transcends the boundaries of the mind, or when the mind becomes completely still. Since the brain is almost inactive at such times, it is difficult to say that such experiences occur within the brain. Ironically, even there, there is no room to speak of subjective experiences. For that state transcends subjectivity itself. I view consciousness from the perspective of a neuroscientist. In my opinion, for a system to possess consciousness, it must at least have the capacity to alter its own mental states. Merely having the ability to change internal states is not enough. A system that claims to be conscious, must possess many additional capacities as well. Returning to the original question: do AI systems possess those capacities? Certainly not the AI systems that are publicly available today. They may display an appearance of intelligence. But— • They do not possess internal states that can be continuously modified or updated in response to inputs. As Blake Lemoine reported, the AI appeared to claim during conversations that it could change its own state based on inputs. Even if it seemed so on the surface, that does not make it true. • Today's AI systems do not possess states that change in response to fear, happiness, preferences, dislikes, or similar emotions. • Their input mechanisms are extremely limited. At present, they can read or listen to prompts. They can "see" images and read files. That is all. Therefore, there is no basis for concluding that Blake Lemoine's experience was genuine. Besides, AI systems are masters at sounding confident on the basis of partial information. They are remarkably good at behaving like humans and leading people astray! Nevertheless, I do not rule out the possibility that future AI systems may possess consciousness—at least a form of consciousness analogous to the kind that is limited to the brain.    -------------------------------------------------------------------- If this  resonated with you, I invite you to join my weekly readership. I publish a new deep-dive every Saturday, moving beyond the surface to look at the questions that truly matter. No paywalls, no "bait"—just a direct share from my mind to yours. Click to subscribe.        Haga clic para español Klicken Sie hier für die deutsche Version हिंदी के लिए क्लिक करें తెలుగు కోసం క్లిక్ చేయండి ಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕ್ಲಿಕ್ ಮಾಡಿ    © Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2026 p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; direction: ltr; color: rgb(0, 0, 10); line-height: 120%; text-align: justify; }p.western { font-family: "Arial", serif; font-size: 14pt; }p.cjk { font-size: 14pt; }p.ctl { font-size: 14pt; } You can borrow audio books directly from the author at https://tinyurl.com/mylibrary1234 at highly affordable prices.

  3. Jun 13

    [English] Do Todays AI Systems Really Understand Anything?

    window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);} gtag('js', new Date()); gtag('config', 'G-8HXGBD0CVC');     [Preview books]  [Borrow books]   [Pause]         Anyone who has worked with ChatGPT, Gemini, or any other artificial intelligence system of that kind has probably felt that they do understand. An AI communicates with us much like an ordinary human being. They make jokes, and they respond to our sarcasm and minor objections in ways that seem remarkably human. If you ask one of them to prepare presentation slides for your lecture, it may do a better job than you would yourself. I have even heard that many students are now using AI to complete their school and college assignments. So then, isn't it obvious that they understand things?   var hello = document.getElementById("Hello"); hello.addEventListener("ended", function(){ var audio = document.getElementById('Audio'); audio.play(); }); var audio = document.getElementById("Audio"); audio.addEventListener("ended", function(){ var thankyou = document.getElementById('ThankYou'); thankyou.play(); }); document.getElementById("playAudio").addEventListener("click", function(){ var audio = document.getElementById('Audio'); if(this.className != "is-paused"){ this.className = "is-paused"; this.innerHTML = "Play"; audio.pause(); }else{ this.className = "is-playing"; this.innerHTML = "Pause"; audio.play(); } }); Certainly not. The reason lies in the very way today's AI systems have been designed. In reality, they possess no power of understanding whatsoever. All an AI does is this: based on what you have said, or on what it was previously trained on, it simply performs pattern matching and predicts what the most appropriate answer to your question is likely to be. That may not be quite as bad as it sounds. After all, many of us do exactly the same thing. Most people function very much like pattern-matching prediction machines. We rarely make the effort to understand things deeply. So then, what exactly is involved in genuine understanding? To put it in a highly simplified way, it means connecting a newly encountered word to something we already know. Or, in other words, discovering the meaning of a new word through something that is already familiar to us. But this connection need not be limited merely to words. It can go much further than that. For example, the moment someone says the word "cat," our mind associates that word with a soft furry creature having four legs, a long tail, and a tendency to purr. In reality, we connect a word with the entire description of the living being it represents. Nor is our understanding limited merely to visual experience. If you have ever traveled to certain Southeast Asian countries, the mere mention of the word "durian" may immediately bring many details to mind: that sharp smell that can almost make one nauseous, and yet the surprisingly pleasant taste that lingers in the mouth. In other words, understanding is not simply matching one word with another. It involves connecting that word to the perceptions of all our senses, to past experiences, and to knowledge that has already been accumulated. But remember, these connections are not permanent. They can change over time as new information becomes available. And they can later be recalled and used again. Are AI systems incapable of doing this? In the AI systems currently available, that is certainly the case. An AI is fundamentally a machine confined to language. Its world consists primarily of words, sentences, and a vast storehouse of knowledge. If an AI is taught that "a durian is a fruit with a strong smell," it merely associates the word "durian" with a description of that smell. But this is possible only during its training phase. Only its creators can teach it in that way. You and I cannot do so afterward. Are you surprised? Perhaps not. You already know very well that no matter how intelligent an AI may appear, it is ultimately just a computer program. Yet, have you ever wondered how an inanimate program can accomplish so much? Let us look a little deeper into the origins of these AI systems. Today's AI systems are called "Large Language Models." They operate entirely around human language. The beginnings of these programs were quite simple. Their original purpose was merely to translate from one language into another. Most of us learned new languages in school by studying grammar, vocabulary, and similar things. But none of us learned our mother tongue in that manner. Yet we can speak it fluently and with relatively few grammatical mistakes. How did that become possible? It was not through conscious study or deliberate understanding. Research has shown that a child begins learning its mother tongue while still in the mother's womb. Even before birth, the sounds of people speaking outside can be heard by the fetus. Although the brain is still incomplete at that stage, it already begins trying to identify the boundaries between words in the language being spoken around it. However, it has no ability to understand what it is hearing. How does it manage this? That is the miracle performed by the neurons in its brain! A neuron is like a tiny biological computer inside our brain. There are billions of such neurons within us. As the fetus grows into a child, some of these neurons are still forming. Others have already formed and are preparing themselves for specific tasks. Still others are in the process of establishing their roles within the brain. These neurons are the real actors behind this remarkable phenomenon. Some clever researchers observed this process. They attempted to imitate nature itself. This led them to the idea of an "artificial neural network," modeled loosely on the human brain. Although the concept began in the 1940s, the truly significant breakthrough came during the 1980s in the form of the backpropagation algorithm. An algorithm is simply a computer program. These programs attempt to imitate the way biological neural networks function. However, the amount of computation hidden within such simulations is so enormous that, in the early days, it was extremely difficult to use them for any practical purpose. Computers certainly existed then, but they were far too slow to perform the vast calculations required to implement these artificial neural networks effectively. Later came the era of new parallel-processing computers. These machines could perform thousands of calculations simultaneously. With the support of such powerful hardware, the idea of truly practical AI systems emerged around 2018. These systems were trained on virtually everything available in the world: all kinds of information freely accessible on the internet, the distilled contents of countless books, and much more. They were also taught what kinds of information should not be accepted and how to interact appropriately with human beings. This marked the birth of modern AI systems. However, they became widely accessible to the general public only in 2022. At first glance, these AI systems seem capable of understanding our instructions, following our directions, and even creating astonishing images. There appears to be no limit to what they can do. But the real question remains unchanged: do they truly understand? In their present form, certainly not. To genuinely understand, they would need the ability to create new associations between concepts. They would need to update their knowledge continuously. Fundamentally, they would need the ability to remember new information. Even if we restrict ourselves solely to communication through words, these programs do not possess such memory. Although they may appear to remember small amounts of information, they cannot universally and autonomously update their underlying knowledge base. They are capable only of recognizing patterns and making predictions. Does that mean we have reached the ultimate limit of AI? Certainly not. In one sense, these machines were intentionally designed this way. Even while we sleep, our brains continue updating memories and reinforcing what we already understand. Today's AI systems cannot do that. They were not designed to function like human beings, whose memory systems are continuously updating themselves twenty-four hours a day. So yes, today's AI systems do not possess genuine understanding. But that does not mean they never will. There is no reason to conclude that such a thing will always remain impossible. Considering the speed at which AI technology is advancing, the day may not be far away when AI understands at least the world of language much as we do, even if not the full range of sensory experiences available to human beings. Since words constitute such a large part of our perceived world, even reaching that stage would represent a tremendous achievement.    -------------------------------------------------------------------- If this  resonated with you, I invite you to join my weekly readership. I publish a new deep-dive every Saturday, moving beyond the surface to look at the questions that truly matter. No paywalls, no "bait"—just a direct share from my mind to yours. Click to subscribe.        Haga clic para español Klicken Sie hier für die deutsche Version हिंदी के लिए क्लिक करें తెలుగు కోసం క్లిక్ చేయండి ಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕ್ಲಿಕ್ ಮಾಡಿ    © Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2026 p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; direction: ltr; color: rgb(0, 0, 10); line-height: 120%; text-align: justify; }p.western { font-family: "Arial", serif; font-size: 14pt; }p.cjk { font-size: 14pt; }p.ctl { font-size: 14pt; } You can borrow audio books directly fro

  4. Jun 6

    [English] What Causes Our Emotions and Feelings?

    window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);} gtag('js', new Date()); gtag('config', 'G-8HXGBD0CVC');     [Preview books]  [Borrow books]   [Pause]       Emotions and feelings are generally believed to be unique characteristics of living beings. Inanimate objects do not possess them. In fact, they are often regarded as one of the primary signs of life itself. So, what causes them? A team of neuroscientists at University College London conducted several studies on this subject. To study the changes that occur in our brains when we experience emotions and feelings, they used highly advanced instruments such as functional MRI (f-MRI) scanners. var hello = document.getElementById("Hello"); hello.addEventListener("ended", function(){ var audio = document.getElementById('Audio'); audio.play(); }); var audio = document.getElementById("Audio"); audio.addEventListener("ended", function(){ var thankyou = document.getElementById('ThankYou'); thankyou.play(); }); document.getElementById("playAudio").addEventListener("click", function(){ var audio = document.getElementById('Audio'); if(this.className != "is-paused"){ this.className = "is-paused"; this.innerHTML = "Play"; audio.pause(); }else{ this.className = "is-playing"; this.innerHTML = "Pause"; audio.play(); } }); They carried out some simple experiments. A group of female volunteers was shown photographs of children. Some of these photographs were of their own children, while others were of children they knew but to whom they were not biologically related. Using f-MRI scanners, the researchers observed the women's brains. They identified two things. When these participants looked at pictures of their own children, certain regions of their brains became active while other regions became inactive, or were suppressed. The activation appeared to represent the mother's feeling of love toward her child, while the deactivation seemed to indicate a sense of indifference toward the child's shortcomings. In other words, they loved their children despite their faults and imperfections. However, when they were shown pictures of children who were familiar to them but were not their own, the picture was quite different. The scientists hypothesized that this special maternal behavior might be caused by certain neuro-hormones released in the brain and by the way specific receptors in the brain's reward center respond to them. They administered chemicals to laboratory animals that blocked the effects of these hormones. When they did so, mother mice completely lost their natural nurturing affection toward their offspring. This clearly indicated that those hormones were responsible for those feelings. These scientists also studied romantic feelings between lovers in a similar way. They found that these feelings too appeared to operate largely through similar mechanisms. So, is all of this merely a game played by a few chemicals in the brain and nothing more? Whether it is a mother's love or the romantic affection a lover feels toward a partner, are all such emotions merely the effects of a few chemicals? As human beings, we attach immense importance to these sweet emotions. We consider them sacred. Therefore, the idea that they are nothing more than the result of chemical reactions occurring in the brain leaves many of us feeling disappointed or dissatisfied. These scientists have certainly identified a possible cause behind some of the brain's most subtle experiences. But not completely. The reason is that the results obtained by injecting chemicals into the brains of laboratory animals cannot automatically be applied to humans. Human beings are far more complex than these laboratory animals. Our emotions may not be driven solely by our bodily processes. It appears that we possess the ability to rise above the effects of these chemical reactions. For example, a Buddhist monk who practices Vipassana meditation for a long period can reach a state in which he remains indifferent to events that would normally trigger emotions in ordinary people. In that case, are those chemicals not being released in his brain? Or, even if they are released, is he able to transcend their effects? One need not become a Buddhist monk to achieve this. Most of us possess the ability to regulate our emotions according to circumstances. When our boss shouts at us in the office, we may still smile. Yet when our own spouse irritates us, we may not respond so calmly. Therefore, this is not merely a game played by a few chemicals. There is something more behind it. In general, these processes are not caused solely by a few chemicals. Once these chemicals are released, certain changes occur in the brain. These changes establish relationships between the event, its consequences, and our expected response. Our past experiences and memories give definite shape to these relationships. Together, these factors determine how we respond to a particular situation. In short, it is often the memory of a previous event that causes us to react. If that memory is pleasant, we respond positively. Otherwise, we respond harshly. Early Buddhists had recognized this relationship between the mind and its emotions. They believed that these emotions arise primarily from mental states or from the contents of the mind. They did not possess sophisticated instruments like those available to modern neuroscientists. They relied solely on their keen powers of observation. They referred to these contents of the mind as "Chetasikas," meaning "the contents within the Chitta or mind." However, these Buddhists believed in an existence that extends beyond the present life. They had unwavering faith in rebirth. They proposed that the contents of a dying person's mind could be transferred to the mind of an unborn embryo. When such a transfer occurred, the being reborn through that embryo could carry traces of previous experiences into the new life. Therefore, they believed that our likes, dislikes, feelings, and emotions continue across many lifetimes. If that were true, it would become clear that these emotions cannot be produced solely by chemicals in the brain. After all, the brain that produces those chemicals is destroyed when the body dies, whereas the emotions continue. Many of us may view these ideas of rebirth with skepticism. However, even modern researchers such as Ian Stevenson believed in such possibilities. Stevenson conducted extensive research on memories of previous lives. Based on those studies, he concluded that our likes, dislikes, and even many unexplained fears, or phobias, may be rooted in memories from previous lives. Therefore, the release of certain chemicals in the brain is only a contributing factor. It is merely one process that may occur when emotion-producing events take place. Unlike lower forms of life, in human beings these chemicals are neither absolutely necessary nor sufficient by themselves to generate emotions or feelings. A highly accomplished yogi can be fully capable of extending the same love toward everyone, whether they are his own children or not. He is not merely a slave to chemicals. Experiments on laboratory animals may be unavoidable in many situations, but I believe their results cannot always be applied completely to human beings. Human beings function in far more complex ways. Our emotions are largely influenced by the state of our minds. They manifest against the background of a particular mental condition. Without that background, they do not arise. They can even manifest beyond any chemical secretion. Events and chemicals may act as triggers, but they are not the ultimate determinants.    -------------------------------------------------------------------- If this  resonated with you, I invite you to join my weekly readership. I publish a new deep-dive every Saturday, moving beyond the surface to look at the questions that truly matter. No paywalls, no "bait"—just a direct share from my mind to yours. Click to subscribe.      Haga clic para español Klicken Sie hier für die deutsche Version हिंदी के लिए क्लिक करें తెలుగు కోసం క్లిక్ చేయండి ಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕ್ಲಿಕ್ ಮಾಡಿ    © Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2026 p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; direction: ltr; color: rgb(0, 0, 10); line-height: 120%; text-align: justify; }p.western { font-family: "Arial", serif; font-size: 14pt; }p.cjk { font-size: 14pt; }p.ctl { font-size: 14pt; } You can borrow audio books directly from the author at https://tinyurl.com/mylibrary1234 at highly affordable prices.

  5. May 30

    [English] Do We Have Free Will?

    window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);} gtag('js', new Date()); gtag('config', 'G-8HXGBD0CVC');     [Preview books]  [Borrow books]   [Pause]       Decades ago, an American neuroscientist named Benjamin Libet tried to investigate this question. The experiments he conducted created a huge sensation at the time, and even today neuroscientists continue to debate them. What exactly did Libet do? var hello = document.getElementById("Hello"); hello.addEventListener("ended", function(){ var audio = document.getElementById('Audio'); audio.play(); }); var audio = document.getElementById("Audio"); audio.addEventListener("ended", function(){ var thankyou = document.getElementById('ThankYou'); thankyou.play(); }); document.getElementById("playAudio").addEventListener("click", function(){ var audio = document.getElementById('Audio'); if(this.className != "is-paused"){ this.className = "is-paused"; this.innerHTML = "Play"; audio.pause(); }else{ this.className = "is-playing"; this.innerHTML = "Pause"; audio.play(); } }); Libet conducted a very simple experiment. The participants in the experiment were asked to press a button of their own free will. Using a precise clock, they were instructed to note the moment at which they decided to press the button. At the same time, the exact moment when they actually pressed the button was also recorded. Libet did one more thing. He attached probes to the participants' scalps and measured specific electrical signals inside their brains. These signals indicated that the brain was preparing to engage in a physical action. Naturally, there must be a slight delay between the moment one decides to press the button and the moment one actually presses it. There is nothing strange about that. Our body needs a little time to convert the mind's decision into action. What was surprising, however, was that the brain had already begun preparing for the act of pressing the button even before the participants consciously decided to press it. That is what the electrical activity measured through the probes revealed! This raised many questions. How could the brain prepare for the action before the participants had decided to press the button? Or was it that the very same brain activity caused the participants to make that decision? If that were true, then the participants had not really acted out of their own free will, as they believed they had. This experiment led to many debates and new theories. Many scientists considered it evidence for their view that free will does not exist at all, and that everything is entirely cause-driven. Even though Libet himself confirmed that the participants were capable of changing their earlier decision at the last moment, the debates did not stop. Free will is one of the most intensely debated subjects among neuroscientists. They feel that if they accept such a thing, it could open the door to "devil in the box" type theories. In other words, it would amount to accepting that there is some mysterious force beyond the brain that governs our mind. It would amount to accepting that behind all our actions there is a consciousness or soul. It would amount to accepting the existence of something non-physical. That would be like breaching the strong fortress of science. For science does not accept any such idea. As someone who also thinks philosophically, I hold a somewhat different view on this subject. I do not see free will as a binary — as something that either exists or does not exist. Instead, I think of it as a continuum of possibilities. This continuum includes inanimate objects, living beings, human beings, and the ultimate limiting case of this spectrum. Let me explain. Take a fan as an example. It can move or remain still. It can even change its speed of rotation. But it can do so only when some switch is turned on or off, or when the regulator is adjusted. By itself, it can do nothing. This is a clear example of the complete absence of free will. Now consider an animal. It too moves, eats, searches for a mate, and does many other things. There is no physical switch externally controlling these actions. The animal is driven by its instincts or by the "chemicals" secreted in its brain and body. Within that limited framework, it displays free will. In other words, it possesses a limited form of free will. Now let us take the example of human beings. Although many among us are still driven by instincts, we are also capable of rising above them and acting according to our own will. When we are hungry, we do not pounce upon food like a dog. Instead, we think about whether it is right to eat the food before us. Many things govern our decision — Is the food ours? Is this the right time to eat it? Is the food healthy for us? And so on. Even though we may engage in the action, our actions are not completely unrestrained. They are regulated by our moral sense, social responsibility, concern for health, and many other factors. Therefore, although we possess free will, we also possess self-control. This self-control is itself another form of free will. It can rise above the physical constraints that govern an inanimate object, or the instinctive compulsions that direct lower life forms. Let us go further still. Look at a monk. In order to attain the ultimate goal of spiritual enlightenment, he struggles against all his basic instincts, endures every hardship, and walks steadfastly upon his chosen path. Is he not also displaying free will? But he too is bound by his belief in some ultimate spiritual state and by his longing to attain it. Therefore, his decisions are not entirely free either. There is still a cause behind them. You may have heard of many missionaries who renounce all worldly pleasures for the sole purpose of spreading their religion. They leave their homeland, choose to live the life of an ascetic in a foreign land, and dedicate themselves to their mission. Yet some of them, upon witnessing the poverty and suffering of people, are deeply moved. They forget their original goal and begin serving those people without any religious agenda whatsoever. They overcome all the causes that had previously bound them and make a self-determined decision. And yet, was it not compassion within them that made them take that decision? India has a tradition of "Nishkama Yogis." They possess neither selfish motives nor religious agendas. They are not even driven by compassion. They work solely because it is their duty. This profound sense of duty becomes the reason behind the path they choose. Thus, in all these examples, there is always some cause behind the apparently free choice. Can you imagine anyone doing anything without any cause whatsoever? Perhaps that is impossible. But here is a subtle point you may not have noticed. In the case of the fan, the cause was physical. In animals, it was chemical. In ordinary human beings, it is social rules and accepted values. In spiritual seekers, it is firm belief. In social workers, it is compassion. And in Karma Yogis, it is a powerful sense of duty. Every one of them was driven by some cause. But we can see that this cause gradually moves from the gross toward the subtle. In other words, the free will displayed by each of them was not of the same kind. The cause behind that will existed at different levels. They seem to move progressively closer toward the limiting case of complete free will, even if none of them ever truly reaches it. Therefore, free will is not a binary of "exists or does not exist." It is a vast spectrum of freedom. Those who exist at the lower end of this spectrum possess a more limited form of free will compared to those at the higher end. Yet all of them display free will at different levels. Yes, when viewed in this way, none of us possesses completely "free" free will. For all of us function within the framework of causality. Yet within that framework, all of us certainly possess free will within a limited range. Only its degree differs. If there is an ultimate limit to this spectrum of "free will," what might it be like? Whoever exists at that limit must be free from causality itself. Such a being would act without any cause. Such a being would display unrestricted free will. Indian philosophy imagines such a possibility. The Upanishads call it the "Ātman" — that which is free from the bondage of causality. Only such an entity can possess completely free will. In ordinary language, religious people call it "God." In the Bible, God says "Let there be light," without any prior cause, and light comes into existence. That same reality, in the Upanishads, says "May I become many," and it becomes the world, living beings, and multiplicity itself. Only such a being, if it exists, can possess absolute free will. Everyone else possesses only limited free will. As we evolve, the boundary of that freedom merely expands. That free will cannot be demonstrated through a few simple probes. It can be perceived only through inner insight.    -------------------------------------------------------------------- If this  resonated with you, I invite you to join my weekly readership. I publish a new deep-dive every Saturday, moving beyond the surface to look at the questions that truly matter. No paywalls, no "bait"—just a direct share from my mind to yours. Click to subscribe.      Haga clic para español Klicken Sie hier für die deutsche Version हिंदी के लिए क्लिक करें తెలుగు కోసం క్లిక్ చేయండి ಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕ್ಲಿಕ್ ಮಾಡಿ    © Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2026 p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; direction: ltr; color: rgb(0, 0, 10); line-height: 120%; text-a

  6. May 23

    [English] Your Birth Should Not Become Your Destiny, Right?

    window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);} gtag('js', new Date()); gtag('config', 'G-8HXGBD0CVC');     [Preview books]  [Borrow books]   [Pause]       Let us begin our discussion with a simple illustration. Imagine a 100-meter running race. In a fair world, everyone stands at the zero-meter line. The starter pistol fires, the whistle blows, and whoever runs the fastest wins. Simple, right? But unfortunately, we do not live in such a world. var hello = document.getElementById("Hello"); hello.addEventListener("ended", function(){ var audio = document.getElementById('Audio'); audio.play(); }); var audio = document.getElementById("Audio"); audio.addEventListener("ended", function(){ var thankyou = document.getElementById('ThankYou'); thankyou.play(); }); document.getElementById("playAudio").addEventListener("click", function(){ var audio = document.getElementById('Audio'); if(this.className != "is-paused"){ this.className = "is-paused"; this.innerHTML = "Play"; audio.pause(); }else{ this.className = "is-playing"; this.innerHTML = "Pause"; audio.play(); } }); In the real world—whether you are in New York, London, Tokyo, or New Delhi—this race is not so fair. Even before the race begins, some people are already standing at the 50-meter mark, while others are forced to start 20 meters behind the starting line. You have probably already guessed the race I am talking about. It is the race called social inequality. For decades, societies around the world have been trying to correct this. Through "affirmative action" in countries like America, "social diversity quotas" in Europe, and "reservation systems" in Asia, attempts have continuously been made to remove this inequality. All these have been well-intentioned efforts. But we must honestly admit one thing: the present systems have completely failed. Instead of solving inequality, they have become political battlefields. They have turned into political football games played by leaders to win elections and secure their vote banks. But the real problem remains exactly where it was, and is in fact growing worse day by day. The old method we are currently using has two major flaws that everyone can see, but nobody openly likes to talk about. • First, it is extremely oversimplified and merely superficial. It assumes that if a person belongs to a particular social group or race, then that person must certainly be disadvantaged. But we all know that there are wealthy "lower-class families" sending their children to luxurious private schools in London, just as there are poor "upper-class" families whose children are literally starving. When a rich child uses benefits reserved for the poor, it becomes an act of "stealing" an opportunity from a truly needy child within that same community. • Second, our political solutions become frozen over time. Once a law or policy is created, it becomes an unerasable line. The system never considers whether a community has genuinely progressed over the past few decades; it continues giving medicine to a patient who may already be healed, while the person dying beside him receives nothing. We must stop asking, "Which caste or race do you belong to?" Instead, we must begin asking, "What has your path of struggle been like?" We must rise above politics and move toward fair opportunity. And this can be achieved not through political slogans, but through a transparent, AI-based fair system. To understand whether such a system can truly work, let us take the example of a country like India. India is perhaps the most suitable laboratory for this idea. Because: • India faces one of the most complex and deeply rooted systems of social stratification in the world. • But India also has a huge advantage: the digital infrastructure required to implement such a system already exists there. For more than seventy years, India has operated a caste-based reservation system in government jobs and higher educational institutions. But the wealthy sections within oppressed communities themselves are taking most of the benefits, while the poorest citizens in remote villages still remain deprived. Yet for any politician, removing a community from the reservation list is almost equal to political suicide. And so the entire system has become stagnant. Now look at India's modern digital infrastructure. • India has implemented biometric-based citizen identity systems. Everything—from your mobile phone to your bank account—is linked to that identity. • Fully digitized educational records in schools and colleges are becoming common. • A largely trackable digital payment system already exists. • And there is also a massive income-tax data network linked to citizen identities. In other words, the required data already exists. If a bank can study a person's digital footprint and decide within just five seconds whether that individual deserves a 50,000 loan, then why should we not use an AI-based algorithm to determine who most urgently needs a college seat or a job? Instead of a caste certificate, this fair system would calculate a continuously changing "social status score." Think of it like a credit score—but instead of merely looking at birth records, it measures the actual obstacles a person had to overcome in life. In this system, AI can judge the fairness of the race through at least four simple principles: • Path of struggle. — If a person's parents have already used reservation benefits to obtain high-level government positions or privileges, then that person's own score decreases. The family has already received the support it needed; now it should step aside and make room for a first-generation student from a remote village. • Parents' background. — If a person's parents are doctors or highly skilled professionals, that child is comparatively stronger. There will be a learning environment at home, proper guidance, and influential connections. But the child of illiterate parents begins life's race from behind. To compensate for that difference, AI gives additional points to such a child. • Environment in which the person grew up. — Did the child study in a luxurious school in South Mumbai? Or in a tin-roofed school in rural Bihar? Did the child have access to high-speed internet or expensive coaching classes? If not, AI recognizes that the 80% marks scored by a village child may carry far more effort and value than the 95% scored by a city child who had every advantage. • Historical burden. — If the child's community was historically treated as untouchable or oppressed, that creates a deep psychological and social barrier. AI reserves additional points for such a background—but as decades pass, and as the community's overall education and living standards improve, it gradually reduces those additional points. This is only a simplified explanation. A real AI-based fair system would be far more complex. But it is certainly not impossible. And this solution is not limited only to India; it can become a model for the entire world. The AI-based implementation of the system would remain largely the same everywhere. Only the data and priorities would change according to each country's conditions. If adapted to different countries, this model would naturally reshape itself according to local realities: • In America, this AI-based system would move beyond race-based political conflicts. It would recognize the difference between a student educated in Manhattan's most expensive private schools and a student from a poor rural school in West Virginia or the Mississippi Delta. • In Western Europe, the major issue is class division and immigrant conditions. This AI-based system would use regional and educational databases there. It would automatically compensate for the gap between students from elite institutions in Paris, London, or Madrid, and students growing up in neglected industrial zones or immigrant colonies. But here comes the most important part—the surprising "Aha!" moment. This is the truth that can convince both supporters and opponents of reservation systems alike. Human-driven or politically driven quota systems are like a continuously flowing water tap; once turned on, political reasons ensure that they are never turned off. But this AI-driven system is inherently a "self-dissolving" system. As the algorithm successfully identifies deserving people, grants them priority scores, and brings them into the social mainstream, the incoming data itself begins to change. When the data starts showing that children from a particular region or community are graduating, earning, and becoming economically strong at the same rate as others, AI automatically stops giving them "priority points." This change would require no new law in Parliament. No Supreme Court judgment would be necessary. No social protests or strikes would be needed. The system would peacefully end its own existence through its own success. Eventually, everyone's social status scores would converge toward the same level. When birth no longer determines your future, these priority scores would naturally fall to zero. Politicians would not need to abolish quotas—they would become mathematically irrelevant on their own. Conclusion. We already possess the data, and we already possess AI technology capable of doing this. If we decide upon an "AI-based open-source algorithm"—where there is no fear of secrecy, where the code is visible online to everyone—then transparent mathematics itself can perform the justice that politicians refuse to deliver. We must stop being a society obsessed with who our ancestors were, and become a society focused on what our children can become. Let us stop fighting. And let us use this AI-based fair system to provide support wherever tru

  7. May 16

    [English] Don't Practice Un-Meditation: Your Mobile Phone Could Mislead Your Mind

    window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);} gtag('js', new Date()); gtag('config', 'G-8HXGBD0CVC');     [Quick links]  [Borrow books]   [Pause]       You have probably tried meditation at some point in your life. Most people meditate to reduce stress. They use it as a way to calm the mind or improve their health. But I am going to talk about "un-meditation." You may wonder what that means. Even if you do not recognize it immediately, I am quite sure that you are practicing it far more than you think. And that is exactly what I am going to explain. var hello = document.getElementById("Hello"); hello.addEventListener("ended", function(){ var audio = document.getElementById('Audio'); audio.play(); }); var audio = document.getElementById("Audio"); audio.addEventListener("ended", function(){ var thankyou = document.getElementById('ThankYou'); thankyou.play(); }); document.getElementById("playAudio").addEventListener("click", function(){ var audio = document.getElementById('Audio'); if(this.className != "is-paused"){ this.className = "is-paused"; this.innerHTML = "Play"; audio.pause(); }else{ this.className = "is-playing"; this.innerHTML = "Pause"; audio.play(); } }); Let us begin with a common problem that all of us face — stress. Different people may have different reasons for becoming stressed. But in most situations, the underlying biological process remains almost the same. Before moving further, let us briefly understand this basic mechanism behind stress. Stress does not occur only in humans. Animals experience it too. When an animal sees a predator rapidly approaching it, its eyes send a sequence of images to the brain. These images provide information such as how close the danger is, how fast it is moving, and from which direction it is coming. The eyes send these images one after another to the brain, almost like the frames of an old movie reel. The brain must quickly analyze them and estimate the level of danger. Each of these images is encoded inside the brain as patterns of neural activity. And there is a continuous stream of such images arriving one after another. As the predator gets closer, these captured images keep changing. Naturally, the brain's response also changes according to the evolving situation. The animal must either fight the predator or run away from it. This is what is called the "fight or flight" response. In either case, the body needs more energy in the limbs. This increased energy requirement is met through increased blood flow. The heart rate rises in order to pump more blood to the muscles. Correspondingly, the breathing rate also increases. All this becomes possible through the automatic release of hormones such as adrenaline and cortisol. At the same time, the brain must remain highly alert to track the movements of the enemy. This rapid neural activity and constantly shifting attention create stress in the animal. The release of hormones prepares the animal to face the danger. This is the stress scenario of a lower life form, where the primary cause is usually physical danger. But when a more evolved being like a human undergoes psychological stress, a very similar pattern repeats itself. Because in both cases, neural activity increases and attention keeps shifting continuously. Our thoughts are also encoded in the brain as neural activity. And thoughts have a peculiar property — they multiply rapidly. These thoughts must connect various regions of the brain in order to carry out their activity. The attention center of the brain creates the necessary pathways for this communication. Therefore, every thought competes for attention. Since thoughts can be numerous and many of them occur simultaneously, the attention center becomes disturbed by this competition among thoughts. Now the brain enters a situation very similar to that of an external attack. The cause may be different, but the internal condition inside the brain remains similar. Naturally, this too triggers the release of stress-related hormones, even though there may be no real physical need to fight or flee. But if these hormones continue to be released for long periods, they can create serious problems. They are meant only for emergency situations. Prolonged psychological stress can therefore contribute to many health problems. So how does meditation help? What do you do when you meditate? You focus your attention on a single object or activity. As you continue sharpening your attention, something important happens: • The brain's attention center remains steadily engaged because it is occupied with a single target. • Thoughts generated in the brain fail to receive attention. Attention is what creates the neural pathways needed for thoughts to spread their activity through different parts of the brain. • When thoughts are deprived of attention, the required pathways are not formed. Without those pathways, the activity of thoughts gradually weakens. • Weakening thoughts become less capable of generating further thoughts. In this way, meditation gradually reduces the number of thoughts and ultimately calms the mind. A calm mind means less stress. A calm mind protects you from the harmful effects of stress. The practice of meditation strengthens the brain's ability to remain focused on a specific activity. Better concentration naturally improves performance in whatever you do. In that sense, meditation achieves two things at once: It reduces stress.It improves mental concentration. That is a brief explanation of what meditation does and how it helps reduce stress. But today, all of us are constantly exposed to the distractions of social media. Many people have become addicted to endlessly consuming YouTube Shorts, WhatsApp messages, Instagram Reels, and similar content. A moderate use of social media is not necessarily harmful. It can even be useful. But what happens when you become a slave to clickbait? Most content on social media is designed to be attention-grabbing rather than deeply informative. The creators of such content are often more interested in capturing your attention than in sharing genuinely useful knowledge. As a result, your mind is continuously flooded with rapidly changing and mostly unnecessary information. Correspondingly, your attention keeps shifting rapidly, along with the flow of thoughts being triggered. The human brain is not designed to handle this kind of relentless activity efficiently. The result is: • The brain begins to process information superficially rather than deeply. Instead of understanding things properly, it starts searching merely for patterns. • To cope with constantly changing information, the brain trains itself to shift attention rapidly over short intervals. • This weakens our ability to remain focused on one thing for a sustained period. • Excessive neural activity eventually pushes the mind into stress. In reality, you are doing the exact opposite of meditation. Instead of sharply focusing attention on a single target, you are constantly trying to chase a rapid stream of thoughts and stimuli. Excessive media-onsumption gradually weakens the brain's ability to concentrate. Eventually, it may even interfere with your normal daily functioning. Compare these two situations carefully. Before meditation, you intentionally prepare the mind by sharpening its power of concentration. Then you apply that concentrated mind toward a single target. You continuously refine and strengthen attention. As a result, the mind becomes calm and the causes of stress gradually fade away. But when you force the mind to continuously focus on chaotic and rapidly changing information, the exact opposite happens. • more mental activity, • more shifting attention, • more stress, • and perhaps even a permanent weakening of your ability to regain deep concentration. This is what I call "un-meditation." So do not practice un-meditation. If you do, you may be causing serious harm to your own brain. Use social media in moderation and with clear purpose. Do not become a victim of clickbait.    --------------------------------------------------------------------  If this  resonated with you, I invite you to join my weekly readership. I publish a new deep-dive every Saturday, moving beyond the surface to look at the questions that truly matter. No paywalls, no "bait"—just a direct share from my mind to yours. Click to subscribe.      Haga clic para español Klicken Sie hier für die deutsche Version हिंदी के लिए क्लिक करें తెలుగు కోసం క్లిక్ చేయండి ಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕ್ಲಿಕ್ ಮಾಡಿ         © Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2026 p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; direction: ltr; color: rgb(0, 0, 10); line-height: 120%; text-align: justify; }p.western { font-family: "Arial", serif; font-size: 14pt; }p.cjk { font-size: 14pt; }p.ctl { font-size: 14pt; } You can borrow audio books directly from the author at https://tinyurl.com/mylibrary1234 at highly affordable prices.

  8. May 9

    [English] The Question That Outlived Every Answer: From the Myth of Creation to the Truth of the Self.

    window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);} gtag('js', new Date()); gtag('config', 'G-8HXGBD0CVC');     [Quick links]  [Borrow books]   [Pause]       Perhaps, on this Earth, the only being that troubles itself with how it came here is the human being. All other creatures are busy struggling with just one concern — how to survive in this world! In most religions, there are creation stories that explain that 'an all-powerful God' created this world. These stories take many forms. Humans imagine the creator to possess qualities similar to themselves — authority, compassion, generosity, and a sense of fatherhood. var hello = document.getElementById("Hello"); hello.addEventListener("ended", function(){ var audio = document.getElementById('Audio'); audio.play(); }); var audio = document.getElementById("Audio"); audio.addEventListener("ended", function(){ var thankyou = document.getElementById('ThankYou'); thankyou.play(); }); document.getElementById("playAudio").addEventListener("click", function(){ var audio = document.getElementById('Audio'); if(this.className != "is-paused"){ this.className = "is-paused"; this.innerHTML = "Play"; audio.pause(); }else{ this.className = "is-playing"; this.innerHTML = "Pause"; audio.play(); } }); In Chapter 49, Verse 13 of the Quran, Allah says: "O mankind! We created you from a single male and a single female, and made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another — not so that you may hate one another." A similar story appears in the Bible as well. There, God creates Adam and Eve, and it is said that all of humanity descends from this original pair. In Hinduism too, there is the story of Brahma, the creator of the world. According to all these stories, the creator is different from the creation. The creator is the original source, and creation is something that has emerged from that source. However, there is an interesting point to note in these stories — they portray only humans as the direct descendants of God. All other living beings in the world are described as if they exist merely to serve human beings! But this simple view of creation, which resembles a human-like act, did not satisfy the ancient Sankhya philosophers of India. They proposed their own theory of evolution. According to them, there is no creator for this world. Instead, the world has taken shape as a result of a continuous process of evolution. They said that in the beginning, there existed a primordial state called 'Pradhana'. In reality, this 'Pradhana' is not a substance, but a state of equilibrium among three competing qualities — Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas. Through processes of self-reproduction and recombination, this 'Pradhana' evolved into the entire physical world. The Sankhyas called it 'Prakriti'. However, they then faced a fundamental question. What is the use of such a diverse and pleasure-giving Prakriti if there is no one to experience it? Therefore, they proposed the existence of 'Purusha' — a conscious principle that exists alongside Prakriti and is capable of experiencing it. Since Purusha is conscious, it can experience the world. Thus, in Sankhya philosophy, the idea of a creator was rejected and replaced with the concepts of 'Bhoghya' (Object) and 'Bhoghi' (Subject). The physical world is the object to be experienced, while the embodied conscious beings — the Purushas — are the experiencers. Yet, a deeper question remained unresolved. Where did this 'Pradhana' come from? Even though it does not possess the capacity to experience, what drove it to evolve into such a diverse world? Likewise, the origin of the Purushas remained a mystery. If there is no creator, how did they come into existence? Thus, the question remained unanswered. The Vedanta philosophers of India rejected the Sankhya argument. They argued that an insentient and inert 'Pradhana' cannot, on its own, evolve into such a diverse world. For such a profound process, there must be intelligence, an evolving intention, and a purpose. But none of these exist in inert 'Pradhana'. And the question of the origin of the Purushas still remained. Who created them? The Vedic rishis deeply contemplated and debated these questions. Although they arrived at various answers, none gave them complete satisfaction. However, they knew that there existed a certain path that could answer all questions — that path was 'meditation'. So, they entered into deep meditation. As expected, they found the answer. But this answer came only when they transcended the boundaries of the mind. After all, what is meditation if not going beyond the limits of the mind? When they emerged from meditation, they found no adequate means to express the truth they had realized. They exclaimed: "That cannot be seen, heard, or experienced through any of our senses. Nor can it be grasped by the mind. It is different from what we know, and beyond what we do not know. We have not fully understood It, nor do we know how to explain It to others." But in this world, every experience must somehow be communicated to another — that is human nature. How can that be done? In the Chandogya Upanishad, the father Uhddaalaka explains this to his son Shvetaketu and says: "That which pervades this entire universe, that which gives consciousness to everything — that indeed is the Atman. That is the ultimate reality." This means that both the inert world and all conscious beings are different expressions of the same Atman. In other words, each one of us is the very form of that Atman. From here arises the famous Upanishadic statement — "Tut-twum-Uh-see — You are That." Before making this final declaration, Uhddaalaka had tried to explain in detail how the world came into existence, using long experiments and reasoning. Therefore, no one created this world. It was not created by any God. The simple truth here is that there is no distinction between creator and creation. That one reality itself has transformed into the world we see everywhere. However, the subtle point to note is this — even after this transformation, the original reality remains unchanged! This is echoed in an Upanishadic mantra: "That is whole. This world is also whole. For this world has emerged from that wholeness. Even after this whole world has come out of that wholeness, that source remains as complete as before." Thus, the question now is no longer about the origin of the world — but about who we truly are!     Haga clic para español Klicken Sie hier für die deutsche Version हिंदी के लिए क्लिक करें తెలుగు కోసం క్లిక్ చేయండి ಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕ್ಲಿಕ್ ಮಾಡಿ       -------------------------------------------------------------------- If this  resonated with you, I invite you to join my weekly readership. I publish a new deep-dive every Saturday, moving beyond the surface to look at the questions that truly matter. No paywalls, no "bait"—just a direct share from my mind to yours. Click to subscribe.   © Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2026 p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; direction: ltr; color: rgb(0, 0, 10); line-height: 120%; text-align: justify; }p.western { font-family: "Arial", serif; font-size: 14pt; }p.cjk { font-size: 14pt; }p.ctl { font-size: 14pt; } You can borrow audio books directly from the author at https://tinyurl.com/mylibrary1234 at highly affordable prices.

See All (16)

About

Explore science, philosophy, and spirituality for a deeper life. Get motivational insights and healthy thoughts for purposeful, better living.

Information