Monday, July 26, 2010

A rush of blood to the head.

    Those pitch black irises captivated me. I had met them, not for the first time, when I was roaming about in the Himalayas, trekking with my friends. I was flicking through the photographs I had captured on my camera. That time, like all the times before, I had forgotten about them, until now when I saw my friend's (name concealed upon intimation) eyes boring into me again. I observed them for the first time.

    At the first glance they looked expectant of something. Some change in near future may be. Then the eyes swiveled in their sockets. I continued making my observations. It was then that it struck me that they were excited of something. Hence the expectant look, arising of the expectation of probably some overwhelming danger to pass on. But they also held the look of having already given up, having accepted defeat. I could not reconcile these seemingly contradictory feelings. 'Given up on what?' I thought..given up on obtaining a TV in the household? given up on getting his hands on the brand new Volkswagon Beetle? given up on some particular person, say a friend or relatives, or all of them in general? given up on the boredom that life entails or his life? The face to which those hopeless eyes belonged smirked dejectedly, as if knowing what I was thinking. But then, what is hope, especially to someone who has lost ambition? Or had he no ambition left?

   His family plunged into financial difficulties the year his father was born. It was after years of toiling that they broke even and started to save something. It was pure talent and hard work on his father's part. His father did not build a big empire as the Ambanis for he was already investing heavily in his child. He used to remark, 'Son, I cannot give you money, estate and worldly possessions. The only wealth I can give is knowledge'. It was very philosophical statement and my friend comprehended little. Well, so did his father until recently. But that's another matter altogt

    I will keep this short. As I was saying, my friend was brought up in a decent household that managed 2 meals a day. Despite that, he attended the best schools and colleges, same as me. We used to attend seminars and talks on science topics like, 'The Big Bang', 'The Universe', 'Archeology' which filled our young heads a passion for science. And history. We had a scientific attitude towards life and took pride in that. Hence this close friendship. He had decent grades, a decent college degree. He had gone for his Ms and had procured a decent job. He already lead a decent life, with the required amount of quarreling with as well as love for relatives and friends, with office members, and the world in general. The usual social life. He was moderately active in social circles, on social networks, and owned a Hyundai Santro. He would sure earn enough money to meet the needs of his next three generations. It was the good life ahead. Probably a bit ordinary- a life led by still a thousand men similar to him. It was mundane.

   Recently, he had started suffering from fits and had periods of 'absence', periods he could not account for having spent doing anything, as if day dreaming. It was as if a shadow crept over him. He suffered from acute depression, the doctors said. They prescribed him sleeping pills to cure him of a resurgent insomnia. He thought it was time for a change..He went on an Europe trip. They were exhilerating...the Alps..but only for a while. A few weeks after he came back, he suffered from another bout of depression..


It was night when I met him in my room, when I had first observed his eyes. I talked to him about his problem. I asked, "Have you lost interest in what you do?" "Maybe", he replied. 
    "Maybe? That's neither here not there. Answer me frankly, does your job interest you anymore? You have worked your ass off for whatever you have achieved."
    "You're right", he said finally after much contemplation and added, "But I need to change my job. It might do me some good after all" 
     And then his body suddenly stiffened, as if having a seizure, and looking straight into my eyes, he asked, "Have ever thought about what is the purpose of life? I mean, what is the point of achieving anything at all when it does not remain with us if we die? Do you think anyone dies with a satisfaction?"
    I was sure intrigued by this sudden turn of attitude. I replied, "Sure! For example if you have achieved everything you wanted, done everything for everyone close to you, been a good individual, lived a lawful life, you die a satisfied man!" 
   "Do not delude yourself!", he remarked with vehemence. "There is no satisfaction in dying. Death is an infinitely painful process. More painful than giving birth to a child or knocking off a tooth. Birth is similarly a frightfully painful process. Why would a newborn baby cry if it didnt feel the pain of birth, of squeezing through 400N of wall force? Similarly when your heart fails, it wreaks your muscles and inflicts you with thousand times the tooth pain. There is no meaning to the phrase 'dying peacefully in sleep'- it is peaceful to his relatives for they cannot bear to see him go or they want him to go quickly for whatever reasons! Death is always instantaneous, though it may occur after its cause. Imagine that all the pain of dying was to be experienced in a split second during sleep or even during a heart attack. You would practically get what we call the 'Dirac delta function!' Death in any manner inflict immeasurable pain. So tell me how can there be satisfaction in that? You may convince yourself by saying that you feel satisfied your whole life, but your brain would not be able to grasp an emotion like 'being satisfied' while coping with the labors of death!"
   I knew he was right, even if I didn't want to admit it. But then I wasn't one to back down. I retorted, "What drives a Nobel Laureate? Isn't it love for his subject? Does he not feel satisfied throughout, having always done what he loved? What drives and artist? The same thing! What about a corporate? The same thing!" I knew I had triumphed. My head was thumping badly.
   "Don't give me that crap", he replied smiling. "As Einstein once famously said: 'The important thing is to not stop questioning, curiosity has its own reason for existing'. Mark my words, a researcher feels satisfied with what he does but not with what he has done. He always has to explore more. But then, doesn't all knowledge already exist as a logical necessity and just that man doesn't possess it all? Isn't research a re-searchA scientist, a researcher, even a top level one like a Nobel Laureate loves his subject because he knows of no other way to satisfy his curiosity, at the same time he is never completely satisfied that he is curious enough to know everything! He craves for the total knowledge. In case of an artist, he craves for the masterpiece. For a corporate, it is the knowledge of future that he craves in order to earn more money. Where there is greed, it is greed for some kind of knowledge, and satisfaction cannot exist in totality." He paused looking for some visible signs of impact on my already numb mind, while I thought I understood what had been troubling him all along..Then he added, "In short, any occupation results due to greed for some kind of knowledge to meet selfish ends."
     "So, your proposition is that this life holds little satisfaction because of greed", I pressed on. "You believe that even a noble deed like serving God and doing good deeds holds no satisfaction?" He laughed like a madman. I was worried as to what this conversation was leading to..but at the same time I was intrigued to see this completely logical and devoid-of-emotion POV.
     He said, "Yes life as currently it is cannot give complete satisfaction.You are sick! First tell me how do you serve God? Secondly, serving your fellowmen, doing good deed for them, isn't that your idea of what God must be wanting. It is because you delude yourself in thinking that serving your fellowmen is serving God which should grant satisfaction, that you think you get satisfaction. If you knew what God wants, you would exactly know how to serve him. But again, isn't God the supreme being? Isn't he logically devoid of desire i.e. greed- one of the sins condemned in all religions? Then why would he have any 'wants' or requirements of us humans? Why is it necessary to give him 'bali'? May I ask who knows what kind of bali suffices? The fakir or the saffron saint? Is it written in the Geeta or any other holy book? NO! Then on what basis will the saints themselves suggest a bali? What hopeless objective is it to appease Him by offerings or by Puja or any such form of worship?"
    I tried to interrupt him, but he continued in the same ridiculous vein, "Next question is, what satisfaction is there in serving God, even if you knew how to do it? According to you, isn't satisfaction a product of a selfish deed? Otherwise Nobel Laureates wouldn't exist by the same logic!" It was like being lectured. And humiliation. But I knew something was wrong with the logic of this world and he seemed to be on the right path. "So there has to be some selfish gains from serving God"
   I had found a logical flaw in his argument at last. I said condescendingly, "But isn't obtaining satisfaction a selfish gain?" Period. My head was now pounding after taking all his blasphemy.
   He had a weird look in his eyes. "You know, I had hoped that at least you of all the lot would finally understand me. Only if you can find the fallacy in your reasoning that you will redeem yourself in my eyes", he challenged. And I immediately knew what was wrong. It was like arguing 'serving God is a selfish deed, hence it gives satisfaction, and because it gives satisfaction, it must be a selfish deed'. It was circular logic and thus, flawed per se. I apologized reluctantly and asked him to continue, hoping that at some point he would be wrong with his logic, after all don't all great debates of mankind end on singular and subtle points that turn up only at the end, when the 'bigger picture' is revealed?
  I said, "Fine, I will let go of the usual image of God all religions prescribe. Let us define a God that does not fit with any of the religions". He was smiling, as if happy that his erring child had finally realized his mistake. He had managed to make a dent in my convictions. But I was getting tired, considering the severe headache. He took no notice of it and said, "do you know all religions in the world? do you know what God(s) each of them prescribe? Have you even taken pains to research them all?" It was a series of rebukes.
   I asked him, "But do you?" To my utter surprise, "Yes" he replied. "Infact I did not require to research them all. I eliminated most of them on the basis of logic I described above. And I have arrived at one scary yet exciting Truth that I won't yet describe to you. First I must make you understand why that Truth must exist as a logical necessity- as a tautology arising out of agreeable axioms, and not due to some stupid, corruptible human beliefs. You must have faith in the axioms, and then you will have faith in God"
  "Go on", I said. "But make it quick."
   "This is a quote from a man famous in his secret circles:


Some foolish men declare that God or the Creator made the world. The doctrine that the world was created is ill-advised, and should be rejected. If god created the world, where was he before creation? If you say he was transcendent then, and needed no support, where is he now? No single being had the skill to make the world - for how can an immaterial god create that which is material? How could god have made the world without any raw material? If you say he made this first, and then the world, you are face with an endless regression. If you declare that the raw material arose naturally you fall into another fallacy, for the whole universe might thus have been its own creator, and have risen equally naturally. If god created the world by an act of will, without any raw material, then it is just his will made nothing else and who will believe this silly stuff? If he is ever perfect, and complete, how could the will to create have arisen in him? If, on the other hand, he is not perfect, he could no more create the universe than a potter could. If he is formless, actionless, and all-embracing, how could he have created the world? Such a soul, devoid of all modality, would have no desire to create anything. If you say that he created to no purpose, because it was his nature to do so then god is pointless. If he created in some kind of sport, it was the sport of a foolish child, leading to trouble. If he created out of love for living things and need of them he made the world; why did he not make creation wholly blissful, free from misfortune? Thus the doctrine that the world was created by god makes no sense at all.


  Hence there is no necessity for such a God to exist, for even if He existed, He would not be perceived, and all the more reason to not worship him."
  I asked, " But can't Big Bang be viewed as an act of God, since matter seemingly got created out of nothingness or singularity?" He replied, "Big Bang is just a hypothesis, it has never been verified. There is as much evidence for it as against it. It may well turn out to be a pursuit of fools. There have been several theories suggested in place of Bing Bang. A well established thoery is the Hoyle-Naralikar theory of cosmology that says that the universe has no beginning and no end! Also, do you think the science of today is in the most advanced state? There has been ample evidence showing that our ancestors had diverse knowledge regarding various subjects like mathematics, chemistry, biology, one of the examples being the mummification process. Probably they had more knowledge than us than not, except that they perished and only fools remained?"
  "So what's your point?", I asked exasperatedly.
"Patience is a great virtue", he replied toying with me. "Do you finally accept that this life in its current known capabilities is insufficient of providing complete satisfaction?
"Yes."
"Do you accept that complete satisfaction and complete happiness or bliss are two sides of the same coin?"
It was a trick question. But it made everything clear. 
"Yes."
"Do you think Nobel Laureates, to use your own example, will feel completely satisfied if they discovered complete knowledge? Or even Grand Unification Theorists pursuing the goal to unify all theories of material interaction will feel complete happiness for possessing complete knowledge?"
It was easy."Yes."
"Don't you think that all the science that we currently know deals with object (physical object/abstract mathematical objects like groups or man made non-physical entities like economic instruments like bonds etc) interaction theories and there is no way of gaining knowledge other than that regarding object interactions?"
"Yes."
"Don't you think there might be knowledge, or at least a single yet unknown fact to be gained other than those regarding object interactions, just like there might be a 4th Dimension?"
"Yes, it's plausible to say the least."
"Do you think a rational, logical person like a Nobel Laureate would feel satisfied if he is asked the above question?"
He was converging onto the finale. "Yes, I believe". I noticed my heart was beating faster.
"Do you believe someone died a satisfied man?"
So that was the root of everything.
If someone did, then he must have possessed all the knowledge in and of the world.
"It is quite possible, even if I or most of mankind doesn't know of it", I replied. Or facts may have been distorted or mixed with fictitious facts to protect other religions, I thought. I had had enough.
And then he said very slowly and clearly, "That must have been GOD".
He knew too much and had to be silenced.
I whipped out my 9mm and shot at him point blank. And as he fell down, I saw his satisfied smile.


P.S. The author is tolerant to other beliefs, but he is under no compulsion to deem them worthy. It is not mentioned that the author's beliefs and those mentioned in the short story are the same.