Was Lord Ram really born?

I have read Ramayan with great interest and think it is one of the most arresting story about the tribulations that a person can face in life. The enchantment that it weaves around the reader is unparalleled and no other story has survived the test of time as this one has. But it is a story.

1. Though Ramayan was written by Valmiki, he admits in his story that it was actually dictated by Lord Vishnu much before Vishnu took birth as Ram. This means that all that happened was divinely ordained. Only those who have blind faith (all faith is blind because it has no evidence to back it up) will therefore believe that Ramayan actually happened. If it is indeed a historical fact, why is it not taught to us in "history" classes in India - a Hindu country. No department of "Ancient history" in any university has been able to collect enough evidence which would stand the test of academic scrutiny. My view therefore is that until some evidence is found, we need to treat it as a story.
2. Authors, when they write stories, liberally make use of the geographical environment surrounding them. For example if I were to write a novel, you may find Ramdaspeth, Dadar, Sitaburdi or even Connaught Place mentioned in the story. When many years later, people find that these places actually existed, this in no way proves that the characters of my story were real. Sholay, as a movie had an extremely riveting storyline and was shot on location near Bangalore. Many years later if we do locate a "Ramgarh" which resembles the location of the shooting, should we start believing that Gabbar Singh actually existed and maybe declare a national holiday on the day on which he was killed because that signified the triumph of good over evil?
3. The same argument holds good for the various dates and तिथी mentioned in Ramayan. It is claimed that Valmiki has outlined astronomical details which could not have been done by a layman. If this is indeed true, it does indicate that Valmiki was probably an expert in astronomy. But this is extremely surprising because even Galileo (born much after Christ and who is hence definitely less than 2000 years old) was persecuted because he correctly postulated that the earth went around the sun which was exactly the opposite of what the bible said. How the human race did not know about earth going around the sun as late as about 500 AC (After Christ) and still make correct estimates of planetary positions 5000 years BC (before Christ) , is intriguing.
4. I also find a disturbing trend amongst believers to brush aside information from the same source book (Ramayan in this case) when it does not suit them. Valmikis Ramayan mentions that Ravana's age was about 20000 years (converted to Roman years from units prevalent in those days) when he was killed by Ram. How could this be possible?
5. In mythological texts (not necessarily Ramayan) many sages ate beef - but find me a believer who will accept this.
6. Coming to the NASA photograph, the bridge like structure has been "carbon dated" and found to be over 3 lac years old. NASA has categorically denied that it is made of stones that once floated on water (for this to theoretically happen, the stones will have to be filled with gas lighter than water) and there is no indication that this technology existed then. But faith will make the stones float on water - you don't require Physics for it. Maybe we can find some evidence of a very superior scientific race that populated the earth at that time but until we find that evidence, can we not keep our judgement in abeyance?
7. The recent Ayodhya judgement while suggesting a seemingly acceptable tripartite division has been found fatally faulty on two counts: [a] How can a deity be a litigant in a case? - the repercussions of this line of thought are un imaginably frightful; [b] On what basis can the learned judges say that Lord Ram was born at this place? Imagine what would happen if each religion starts insisting that their faith be given legal sanction.

The conclusion is obvious. Don't start believing that mythological stories are true - at best extract a "moral" from them (if there is one) and inculcate that in your personal life without insisting that everyone must do so.

Do we need GOD to be good?

Most of my acquaintances and friends (including my mother) think that without GOD, our society would slide into a chaos - people will loot with impunity - most social norms would break down and that eventually we will slide back to what we were thousands of years ago - uncivilized. The concept of GOD, according to them, is holding us back from this anarchy. Do you agree with this prognosis?

[1] GOD is not IPC (Indian Penal Code).

Even the Indian Penal Code has not been able to stop increases in murders (the per capita murders in India has been rising in spite of IPC allowing capital punishment). Majority of those who commit crimes do so in spite of being ardent believers of GOD (in any form). Each jail in India has special places of worship. We have to accept that believing in the existence of a divine power has not at all discouraged these perpetrators of crime. We have the classic example of 9/11 where the crime was carried out because of GODs wish to punish the infidels (at least that 's what the terrorists were made to believe).

[2] Is the rate of crime higher in predominantly "atheistic"countries?

Actually quite the contrary is true. The civic consciousness, law and order problems, rate of crime, empowerment of women, public health, child mortality, gender equality and of course economic growth and the overall development measured by the HDI (Human Development Index is used by UNO to rate nations on the basis of economic and non economic indicators of growth) is much better in these "atheistic" nations (Norway, Sweden) than countries like USA or India both of which predominantly believe in GOD. The absence of GOD (statistically in the minds of majority of their population) does not seem to have created anarchy.

[3] Are believers better than others in taking ethical and moral decisions? Psychologists can assess the personality trait of an individual for (1) integrity and (2) ethical /moral behaviour. I was fascinated (& so will you be) to read about the conclusions drawn by Hauser and Singer's study (Page258 of "The GOD Delusion" by Richard Dawkins) that there is no statistically significant difference between atheists and believers in making moral judgments.

We obviously do not need GOD to be either good or evil.

"Statistics" could be the answer to this problem...

Let us accept it. Most people are scared of mathematics - some succumb to this fear before graduation while others, a little later. Like they say हर आदमी की एक कीमत होती है; in this case every person has his threshold of tolerance beyond which he wants to be "liberated" from the tyranny of numbers. Statistics is the बाप of mathematics and even those interested in the latter could run scared of the former. Would you however believe if I say that statistical theories actually rule our lives?

Hypotheses in physical sciences like Physics & Chemistry are LAWS because they are always true (100% probability). The law of gravitation, for example, works the same at all times of day and night and at any place on the globe. There are however hypotheses in the fields of medicine or social sciences like psychology or sociology where laws may not be true 100% of the times but could still be recognised as "laws" ( remember, anything that happens with more than 50% certainty has the potential of being called a "law").

My hypothesis is that most of us are full of superstitions mainly because we haven't understood statistics.

I rate "superstitions" as one of our top problems. Just imagine - without superstitions we would not have had [1] our caste system; [2] the practice of सती; [4] खाप पंचायत and honour killings ; [4] Dowry deaths; [5] Female foeticide; [6] Belief in numerology, astrology, palmistry; [7] Gender bias against women; [8] Child marriages; [9] Religious obstinacy.

A dictionary defines "Superstitions" as beliefs without any evidence (or shall I add, statistical evidence). It is obvious that when we operate under the influence of superstitions, we suspend our power of analysis. Then fearing being branded "illogical", we stretch ourselves to justify our actions, fully ignoring what "statistics" is telling us.

[a] Statistics tells us that the possibility of a couple getting a son or a daughter is really 50% and depends on the chromosomes from the husband but mothers - in - law (even in TV soap operas) continue blaming the wife for not giving them a son. [b] Psephology is a decent statistical tool to predict election results but our politicians would continue to seek blessings from diverse dieties and assign their success or failure to them. [c] People continue to match horoscopes before marrying their children, ignoring the statistical fact that workability (or non workability) of marriages depends on a host of factors, other than planetary influences. They conveniently ignore all those cases where marriages failed in spite of this horoscope matching [d] People continue to have faith in homoeopathy though statistically, its rate of success is no better than that of a placebo. [e] People continue to believe that "regular prayers" to GOD bring them success, turning a blind eye to the fact that in almost all cases, the prayers did not work - hard work did. [f] So many of us strongly believe and insist on others believing that a moment or a day or a particular month is auspicious to start or perform a particular activity. [g] Belief in the existence of an ALMIGHTY power controlling all of us and this world is deeply entrenched in the mind of so many, without any statistical verification of the thought (at least someone over the last tens of thousands of years should have been able to prove the existence of such a power instead of just saying that" it has to be experienced" or "you need to be devout" in order to experience it).

I think statistics should be made compulsory right from middle school so that all of us understand that there is always a possibility of something happening in a given set of circumstances and we should not jump to the conclusion that that is what will always happen. We should not create a relation between an input and an event ( A implies B) unless this happens often enough to have statistical significance.

What is wrong with us?

Three happenings in the recent past have saddened me as I am sure they have, countless other fellow Indians. The way India managed and weathered the last two years of economic recession and the brightness with which many non resident Indians are shining all over the globe had for once given credence to Dr. Kalams' dream of our country getting counted as a role model (albeit in the next few decades). These events certainly deflated that pride.

1. खाप Panchayats in Haryana:

In obviously what is a no brainer, "same - गोत्र " marriages cannot lead to genetic defects that could occur in off-springs (due to "in-breeding") because of the simple fact that the present generation is very far removed from the original ऋषी (the name of the gotra is the same as that of this sage) from whom the lineage started. These खाप पंचायत in Haryana are ordering newly married couples to be ostracized or even killed for not obeying their ridiculous diktats of not marrying someone staying in even the same village. What is more disturbing is that there is no up surge of anger amongst Haryanvis who otherwise are hot-blooded enough to spill their anger on the streets. To top it all, two Members of Parliament (one of them Mr Jindal who is a part of India's progressive youth brigade) have come out with meaningless and mushy statements (obviously keeping their vote banks in mind) about how we must respect our traditions. Frankly I am perplexed - can India shine brightly with a prosperous state like Haryana being so outdated and callous in its public beliefs? Or is this a new strategy to give a scientific flavour to what essentially is superstitious nonsense or at best illegal flexing of political muscles. Who knows, we may next have a demand from Rajasthan to re start the practice of "सती "?

2. Antics of Shibu Soren in Jharkand

He becomes Chief Minister with BJP's support - then goes and votes against them in the no confidence motion against the Congress government at Delhi - asks for forgiveness when BJP threatens to withdraw support in Jharkand - first agrees to step down and allow BJP to form the government with its own CM - then turns around and says both parties will have CM by rotation for 28 months each and finally says he won't vacate the seat for the BJP. What surprises me is the absolutely spineless response of a national party like BJP just for sharing the spoils of office. If the "Hindutva" brigade cannot shun मोह (lust for power in this case) which Hinduism calls upon its true followers to achieve, aren't they being as hypocritical as they accuse their opponents to be?

3. फतवा from Deoband about not working in banking and insurance sectors.

The presumptious फतवा about Muslims not being allowed to work in both these sectors (because it is against the shariah) is another ridiculous attempt to impose fake religiosity over the common masses who understandably dare not openly criticize these interpreters of faith. There were some sporadic public calls from other Muslim clerics about the non tenability of this फतवा but what remains etched in the mind is the threat received by Mr. Javed Akhtar (may his tribe grow) who is the only Muslim atheist that I have ever heard of.

Don't you think India is moving back to medieval ages, at supersonic speed??

Being religious could be injurious to your (mental) health

Contrary to popular belief, religion can induce hallucinatory behaviour - please pay careful attention to the following classic symptoms.

[1] You may suspend the usage of your intellect

Normally, you will use this to carefully analyse every decision that you take - for example (a) Painstaking research about which cellphone to buy; (b) Credit history of a guy before lending him money; (c) Studying effectiveness of your earlier advertisements before releasing new ones. When the same person is however in the "religion" mode, he just stops using his analytical ability & allows himself to be lead by the nose, as if in a trance - for example believing that (d) you could be reborn as a dog in the next life; (e) you could absolve yourself of all sins just by confessing or taking a holy dip in a river; (f) certain moments are more auspicious than others.

[2] You may believe that bribery is an acceptable way of getting things done

While there is a stringent law in place against giving, abetting or accepting UTT (popular term amongst sales persons meaning "under the table"), religious people cannot be arrested for doing this, as the other party has never been identified. So you have people offering gold and cash to GOD to get in return, at least a part of their wish list (an offspring, wealth, business, success in an examination or as in Chennai, a mundane visa to USA)

[3] Your obsequious loyalty may reach the heavens (pun intended)

Those of you who have had dogs at home, would easily recall how delightful it is to be welcomed home at any hour with that love lorn look in the eyes of your pet (a spouse is no match except maybe during the first few months of marriage). This is what I call 100% loyalty and yes how you love his groveling for biscuits or whatever... Now just imagine yourself symbolically to be the pet and then start pleading for favours from the supreme entity that religions want you to surrender yourself to. The pet just doesn't know any other way of getting its rewards but human beings do - but would still not make use of any of these alternatives.

[4] Virtual reality cannot get you your daily bread

Psychologists recommend "positive thinking and optimism" as traits that would improve personal productivity but these cannot be used to acquire hardcore skills like flying an aircraft or becoming a surgeon. An interesting research has demonstrated that predominantly "atheist" nations (large enough statistical samples) far outclass "religious minded" ones on every parameter of economic development like GDP growth, improvement in health standards, reduction of poverty, empowerment of women, reduction in child mortality etc. The reason looks obvious: while the atheists have no one to "fall back upon except themselves" to perform, others depend on GOD to do most of their chores.

[5] Your fear of the unknown will increase manifold

Do ghosts frighten you? Are you fearful that all your actions are being entered in a balance sheet by someone who will one day (conveniently after your death) ask you to explain and then allot you an abode that is commensurate with your net positive (or negative) worth? Have you convinced yourself that our solar system and other galaxies cannot but be controlled by some "powerful entity" (read GOD)? The major strength of any religion is that it cleverly operates on the basis of hypotheses that cannot be disproved. Moreover, anything that cannot be explained is attributed to that supreme power. Now how many discoveries in the last century (which were earlier attributed to the divine power) were indeed found to be so? ZERO! All that has happened is that a new set of unknown things are now attributed to the divine power. The burden of proving any theory normally lies on the one who propounds it - here it is exactly the opposite - the burden of disproving it lies on the non - believer and until that happens, the believer happily keeps behaving as if it was the ultimate truth. Religion instills such an acute fear of ostracism amongst its followers that most of them turn completely robotic and pliant.

[6] You will stop expecting "accountability" from others

This is natural because religion is not at all accountable for whatever it promises and still has no "customer dissatisfaction" (to use a marketing term). Imagine that you bought an air-conditioner which did not cool your room. Will you blame your ill - luck and just go to the same shop and buy another one hoping that it will work this time? Religion expects you to keep doing that until "one of the units does cool your room" - then it turns around and tells you - "see I intervened with the the shopkeeper to give you a working piece ". It remains completely silent on why it did not intervene all these months - and you of course are so grateful and overjoyed at having got the right AC that you now start praying for a car.

Religious preachers never tire of quoting how flowing water is purer than stagnant water. In the last few thousand years, there hasn't been a single new thought added to religious philosophy (stagnant) while the world outside has innovated in leaps and bounds (running water). Neither its preachers nor its scriptures are likely to withstand rigorous and independent scrutiny - a threshold that any philosophy has to cross to earn its stars. Human beings must have got genetically mis-wired (some software somewhere got mis programmed in the process of evolution) for so many of them to behave in the weird manner that they do when it comes to "religion".

It would actually be a good idea to post a statutory warning outside all places of worship that says " Beware! Entering may increase delusional behaviour"

How sinful is your nation?

Recently, I came across an interesting British research report that compared nations according to their "sin" (पाप) index. A nation obviously is perceived to be as sinful as its residents. Analyses like these can never be very accurate and could appear a trifle unfair but this could be said about most studies that are conducted over such a broad canvas. Don't we use the HDI (Human Development Index - comprising of economic, health and empowerment indicators) to assess how developed a nation is?

The "sin" index apparently comprised of seven deadly sins: [1] Lust; [2] Gluttony; [3] Greed; [4] Wrath; [5]Pride; [6] Envy; and [7] Sloth. Each of these parameters carried ten marks and a higher score was considered more sinful. The socio - economic indicators used to measure these attributes make interesting reading.

Lust was measured by the per capita spend on pornographic material and average time spent on viewing this. South Korea was the top scorer here. I wonder how we would measure this in India since officially no pornographic material is available for sale or viewing (unless we track the sale of कामसूत्र) or measure the per capita rate of lustful ogling done at public places. Since very few Indian women lodge complaints of sexual harassment at the office - we would not be able to track that too. If India was included in this study, we will surely come out to be the least lustful nation in the world - not quite how things are.

Gluttony was measured by the per capita expenditure on high calories fast foods. USA came out the most sinful on this parameter. Since almost 40% of our population cannot even afford one full meal per day and since we are the second most populous nation in the world, we will surely score very low on gluttony. Our अतिथी देवो भव् culture has however trained most of us in the well to do segment to force - feed a guest until he surrenders with a loud burp.

Pride was measured by the per capita number of plastic surgeries. India is bound to come out very "virtuous" on this scale too. Maybe we could use the per capita dowry demanded by the grooms' family or the per capita honour killings ordered in Punjab or Haryana as an indicator of personal pride.

Sloth was measured by the number of holidays and absenteeism. We are on our "home ground" on this one. I don't think anyone will be able to beat us on this.

Greed was measured by the proportion of population earning less than 50% of the median value. Wrath was measured by the per capita incidence of violent crimes like rape, murders and assaults.

Envy was measured by the per capita incidence of car thefts, robberies and burglaries. In India this indicator would be so misleading. Maybe we could measure it by per capita personal loans taken to buy luxury goods - a large number of such loan cases are initiated because of jealousy induced by neighbours buying similar items.

Australia was adjudged the most sinful nation (score 46 out of 70) according to this study. If India were to be included in such a survey, I am sure we will come out to be the least sinful unless of course hypocrisy is included in the list. But even then we have this unfair advantage of bathing in the river Ganga and starting with a clean slate all over again. We can indeed never be displaced from our "exalted" status.

Is "reading" becoming a dying habit?

The present generation is smarter and more intelligent than mine in almost all spheres of life. They can handle "technology" far better than us; they get to choose from many times the career choices that we could; they have more money making opportunities and can exploit them much better than us; they are better citizens of the world because of their increased international travel; they are more confident - outspoken - communicative and independent than an average member of our generation was and of course earn more (even taking into account the reduced purchasing power of the rupee) than what we did.

You will agree that this is how it should be. If a succeeding generation is not "better" than the previous one, how can we claim that we are progressing - both economically and as a society.

There is however one serious blot on this otherwise clean canvas. The present generation does not like to read books. Maybe this is so because it is difficult to read books on a computer (or a television) screen to which most of them are "glued" to, throughout the day. Reading (virtually any kind) is "beneficial" to ones mental & therefore physical health and those not practicing it are denying themselves a great source of pleasure, entertainment and knowledge. Readers would have guessed that I am particularly referring to "extra curricular" reading. Movies - the staple food of this generation, unfortunately cannot jump start the process of "maturing" their viewers as books can. A book can be leisurely "chewed" while a movie has to be "gulped down".

It is not as if lesser number of books are being written - it is just that the number of readers has not increased proportionately. This is surprising since literacy levels have actually gone up. I have decided to do my bit to change things.

1. This is a link to My Library in Google Books. Here, I have listed my personal favourites. This should help those who keep asking me to recommend what they should read. The list is now just a click away. I have labeled the books in different categories, added my notes and given star ratings to all of them.
2. Did you know that we now have available (also in India) two state -of - the - art gadgets that allow you to download e-books (at a fraction of the cost of hard copies) that can be read on conveniently designed hand held electronic readers? Yes I am referring to Amazon Kindle and Sony touch. Both weigh under 300 grams, have 6 - inch screens, can store over 500 books, make available to you a library of over 2,00,000 e-books & have many features that will widen your eyes in amazement. Electronic geeks should no longer have excuses about not reading books. Just click the above links for all details.
3. Why not spread the habit by presenting books instead of bouquets or sundry gifts, on all possible occasions?

Choosing a career for your child !

I am reproducing my article published in the Nagpur edition of Times of India.

___________________________________________________________

Like all difficult decisions, choosing a career for your child often gets postponed until the last moment and is then somehow “got over with”. Many of us spend the rest of our life finding justifications for “career” related mistakes that were avoidable. The process appears all the more bewildering to today’s parents because during their time, there just weren’t so many choices and “listening” to elders was invariably the norm. They can’t understand how their own children could have become so precocious (and hence difficult to browbeat). Parents do deserve sympathy alongwith good advice on how to choose the right career for their children.

(1) Do not give importance to what the current trend is – rather find out what your child is comfortable with.

Many careers have been grounded because parents couldn’t wait to see their child become an “engineer” just because the neighbour’s kid was an engineer. Most careers require specific educational and psychological skills. Parents must make use of psychometric tests to match these skill sets with the personality of an individual.

(2) Study the grades that your child obtained in various subjects,

during the last few years at school!

Teach him/her some lessons yourself (parents these days are so dependent on tuition classes that they have almost forgotten the art of teaching their own children). Even a few minutes every day will give you an insight into whether he is quick on the uptake while studying “physical sciences” or “languages” or both.

(3) Never insist on the child becoming your own photocopy.

There is no law in genetics that says that children are born with the same skills as their parents. So don’t insist on the impossible. Many frustrations have their root cause in this “yearning” of parents. If a doctor’s son is a good singer, so be it.

(4) Always shortlist two or three alternatives for in-depth study.

Don’t feel bad about being so ignorant of the plethora of alternatives available and more importantly, don’t feel jealous that these didn’t exist in your time. Talk things over with concerned experts. Do not, I repeat do not send your child to do this legwork. If it had been possible for him or her to decide, why would you have been in the picture at all? Remember whatever else you may not be able to do, you can ask the right questions. Attend special seminars that get conducted. If you want your child to go abroad, going to more than one expert becomes a must. Do not presume that the so-called expert is really so. He might have read about what he is telling you, just yesterday.

(5) Choose the right college or training institute.

This could be confusing especially when you are choosing a training institute. Look for two parameters. Has the owner of the training institute successfully cleared the examination that he claims to train his students for? How are the past results of that institution? Past results never tell lies. Insist on talking to at least some of the faculties to get an insight into their competence.

(6) Choose the career that gives your child more options, later.

If he does BCA (Bachelors in Computer Applications), then the next option has to be MCA! However if he does B Com then he could do either M.Com or MCA. Obviously the second choice is better. Another good case in point could be the BBA (Bachelors in Business Administration) course. While it gives no special benefits during MBA admissions – that is the only logical path that it leads to. Avoid such “close ended lanes”.

(7) Choose a career that is expected to increase your wards’ “job-value.”

Irrespective of what many say, choose a career that you think will get him a more lucrative job. If this also happens to be what he likes most - so much the better! Most of the students choose to become MBA because of the pot of gold that they see at the “end of the rainbow” and not because they “love” business management. I see nothing wrong in this provided they are willing to go through the rigours of a good management course.

In our culture, parents are expected to mould the careers of their children so that the latter could support them, later. Don’t criticize children if they do not succeed – it may be due to the incorrect career guidance given earlier. I am reminded of what a wag once said, though in a different context - “Don’t criticize your wife too much; it may be because of these very defects in her that she did not get a better husband”.

How high is your SQ?

Spirituality is often wrongly equated to complete renunciation of desires. Mythological stories reinforce the view that to be spiritual, one needs to sever all attachments and meditate in splendid isolation (in maybe the Himalayas). Since this is neither economically nor socially logical (especially when we are young), most of us conclude that pursuing a spiritual path is at best a "post retirement" activity. In reality, spirituality is all about conquering or mastering your senses. If you crave for an ice cream but use the power of your mind to abstain from eating it, I guess you are exhibiting "spirituality". Going to temples, observing a fast, following prescribed rituals or dutifully listening to religious discourses do not necessarily make you a spiritual person.

Though research has proved long ago that IQ (Intelligence Quotient) is not such an efficient parameter, we continue to use it as a predictor of "success in later life", by designing academic curricula and examination-patterns that basically test the students' IQ. Psychologists have now established that EQ (Emotional Quotient) plays a far greater role in this process of becoming "successful". However it is a persons' SQ (Spiritual Quotient) that seems to determine how successful and happy the person is likely to be.

Which personality traits increase ones' Spiritual Quotient?

1. Flexibility: It is common knowledge that inflexibility is the cause of un-happiness. Haven't we seen flexible plants and trees easily surviving storms? Rapid progress of technology has made many so called "experts", obsolete – so if they obstinately stick to their guns (as inflexible persons are prone to do), they are surely going to be wiped away. The least flexible persons in a society are ironically the religious fundamentalists who claim to be high on spirituality. Secular individuals who admit that there could be other paths to salvation are thus at a higher level of spirituality than those with the "my daddy strongest" syndrome.

2. Ability to ask fundamental questions: True seekers of knowledge should neither be biased in their approach nor afraid of being proved wrong. They must possess an uncanny ability to get to the core of an issue by asking fundamental questions. Contrary to what we would normally believe, an atheist could thus be more spiritual than a religious person. This habit of seeking answers to myriads of doubts that surround us, soon becomes an important aspect of the seekers' personality. We have always known that in the long run, hypocrites and shams achieve little success or happiness.

3. Ability to use suffering as a means of progress: Even the richest and the most powerful amongst us cannot deny that we all get our quota of "suffering" in life. Suffering is of course relative. For a person used to flying business class, the necessity to travel by AC II tier is acute "suffering" (the recession has heaped such financial ignominies on many). For the slum – dog - millionaires, suffering could come in the form of a demolition squad about to raze their shanties to the ground. The type of suffering does not matter – what matters in determining your SQ is your ability to withstand it stoically and learn from it so that you could prevent its recurrence or at least mitigate its effect in future. Those who appeal to the Almighty to deliver them from their troubles & wait for something to happen are thus far less spiritual than the ones who spur themselves to more meaningful action. Don't we say that GOD helps those who help themselves – why do we often forget this maxim when it is time to act?

4. Causing minimum harm: Harm includes infliction of physical and mental pain. It would be foolish to presume that in a competitive environment as we live today, actions will cause no harm. One can surely [a] avoid causing of deliberate or malicious harm; [b] choose alternatives that minimize hardships.

5. Firm belief in the superiority of POWER of the MIND: Are you aware of the weaknesses and strengths of your personality and more importantly are you engaged in the constant process of reducing the former and nurturing the latter? Do you possess the mental discipline to exhibit "humility" in spite of your intelligence and power? Can you forgive? Can you be benignly detached from persons and material luxuries surrounding you?

Do you realise friends that in this process of increasing your SQ, you are predominantly your own trainer?

Will Science & Religion ever see eye to eye?

Religion & Science are old "enemies". If you go by the number of followers, the former is a clear winner. If it ever comes to choosing only one of them, an overwhelming majority is expected to abandon the latter. "Religion" has always scoffed at "Science" as being incapable of evaluating religious philosophies while "Science" has maintained that "Religion" expects its followers to slavishly & irrationally accept whatever is told to them. Let's look at this a little dispassionately.

[1] Field of operation: Many vital operating principles of religion pertain to the time period either before birth or after death. Thus you have religions telling you how you will be rewarded (or punished) in the next birth or in the post - death period depending upon how you lived your life in this birth. Good deeds get rewarded and bad ones result in pain and trouble. For obvious reasons, it is impossible to verify any of these things. Science on the other hand operates in the material world on the basis of either empirical data (observations without necessarily understanding why a certain thing happens in a certain manner) or hard evidence and educated predictions.

[2] New Discoveries: All progress in "science" can be attributed to the un- quenching thirst for more knowledge (research) without resting on ones' laurels and the innate wish to invent more efficient procedures & to establish hypotheses - not all of which may be 100% true (but which are statistically significantly true). To quote an example, we first had telephone instruments with rotary dialing - then with push button dialing - we then had cell phones and maybe we will soon have "thought - controlled - diallers" which will dial out a number by reading our mind. Internet is another example of how technology has given us a tool which appeared "magical" just a few decades ago. Religion on the other hand has primarily remained the same for thousands of years with no "inventions" or new ideas. It actually prides itself on being so "perfect" that no further developments are expected.

[3] Ability to provide cogent explanations: Religion discourages fundamental questioning while Science thrives on it. Imagine a 15 year old school boy questioning the theory propounded by a Nobel Laureate - the latter would be happy to convince the youngster about the efficacy of the theory without in any way feeling hurt about being challenged by a novice. Now imagine a religious pundit trying to answer seemingly obvious doubts that could creep into the mind of anyone about many things that religion strongly believes in (for example, how can a child be born of a virgin mother OR how could an elephants head be fitted on a human torso). The questioner will most likely be told that he is too "raw" to understand these things or met with "spiritual" anger about being blasphemous. Isn't this exactly how parents stonewall innocuous but embarrassing queries from toddlers?

[4] Loyalty: Most religions expect complete and blind loyalty from their followers. Rebels are encouraged to "leave the room". Religion generates such intense passions that it has been a direct or indirect cause of almost all wars fought in the history of mankind. Science on the other hand expects its followers to be guided by logic and evidence. It actually encourages "destabilization" of existing beliefs (theories) and welcomes rebels because that is how it has progressed all these years.

On all the parameters that we have examined till now, 'science' and 'religion' are diametrically opposite to each other. Are there no commonalities at all??

[5] Ability to generate commerce: Yes this is one ability common to both. Religion & Science both generate commerce on a huge scale. If people were to stop celebrating religious festivals, our GDP could come down to half of what it is - even the errant monsoons do not have such immense power over our financial future.