This I Have Learned

Asato ma sadgamaya

Over a life mostly devoted to learning stuff and not much else except goofing off, I have learned quite a few interesting things. Interesting not in some absolute, objective or universal sense but only particular to me given my preferences, my talents and the opportunities I had.

From quite an early age, I recognized that the yoga consistent with my nature was gyan yoga, the way of knowledge and understanding. That was my dharma. Karma yoga is not my path since I don’t get things done. Left to do as I please, I’d do nothing. Neither is bhakti yoga since I am into any spiritual discipline.

My primary motivation is to know what the world is about. I am convinced that all human suffering — physical as well as mental — arise from ignorance. My core mantra is the Pavamana Mantra from the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad:

asato mā sadgamaya
tamaso mā jyotirgamaya
mṛtyor mā’mṛtaṃ gamaya

which is roughly translated as:

From falsehood lead me to truth,
From darkness lead me to the light,
From death lead me to immortality.

The human condition is one of universal ignorance. What is known to an individual (or even the collective) is vanishingly small in comparison to what can potentially be known which is inexhaustible and infinite. From the point of view of the infinite, the most knowledgeable is indistinguishable from the most ignorant.

Stupidity and ignorance are causally related: each is a cause and consequence of the other. Ignorance leads to stupidity which leads to ignorance … in an endless cycle of cause and effect. Ignorant people are stupid people, and when the stupid gain power (which is quite often), they inflict suffering on others.

{Digression: Lord Acton had observed that great men are almost always bad men. I believe it is so because great men are usually ignorant and therefore stupid, and they generally don’t intend the harm they invariably cause. Mao, Lenin, Gandhi, Stalin, Nehru, Hitler — take your pick. But that’s a matter for another day.}

All we can hope for is some break in the chain through luck. Somehow one learns a bit, and that reduces the stupid component, which in turn allows one to learn a bit more, and so on. The luck comes in the form of the realization that one is ignorant and that one does not know. This realization can perhaps be described by the Zen Buddhist concept of satori — “seeing into one’s true nature.” Naturally, you only realize that you were ignorant of something only after you attain knowledge. Therefore, the more you know, the greater is your awareness of your ignorance.

Koch Snowflake

Koch snowflake

I use the metaphor of the Koch snowflake (which is constructed from the Koch curve) to illustrate this relationship between knoweldge and ignorance. The wiki describes it well —

“The Koch snowflake can be built up iteratively, in a sequence of stages. The first stage is an equilateral triangle, and each successive stage is formed from adding outward bends to each side of the previous stage, making smaller equilateral triangles. The areas enclosed by the successive stages in the construction of the snowflake converge to 8/5 times the area of the original triangle, while the perimeters of the successive stages increase without bound. Consequently, the snowflake encloses a finite area, but has an infinite perimeter.”

The area enclosed in the figure represents knowledge at some stage of development (of an individual or any arbitrarily defined collective however broad) and the perimeter represents the awareness of ignorance. The entity’s knowledge of its ignorance grows as knowledge grows. It is therefore that really wise persons don’t know all that much more than what the foolish know. It’s that the wise have a greater awareness of their own ignorance compared to the foolish.

This is a very powerful metaphor and I believe that as humanity’s knowledge increases, most of it is knowledge of the frontier of ignorance.

What I Learned

In response to my most recent ask me anything, I was asked by Ajit Jadav

Some topic / subject / book / concept / principle / theory / etc. where you had to struggle hard, very hard, before the proverbial light finally dawned upon you gradually, or, may be, the bulb lit up suddenly?

A bit of folk wisdom states that everything is withing walking distance — provided you have the time and energy. So also, I think everything is comprehensible provided one has a basic cognitive capacity (meaning, one is not a moron) and the inclination to use it for comprehending some aspect of the world. Interest matters.

I have never had to really struggle to understand scientific and engineering concepts. My conviction is that if one really, truly understands the basic principles (which are not many) of any domain, then one can readily grasp any concept in it. I believe that it is always useful to revisit the principles to make sure that you have properly understood them. Bob Solow, a “Nobel” laureate economist, said that he needs to re-read things at least three times to get it. I re-read principles many more times.

I have had at least half a dozen major Aha! moments.  Most of them are from the social sciences. But some are from the hard sciences and mathematics. In no particular order:

    • That time travel in the past is a meaningless concept. The problem is that you could never know that you have traveled to the past. It’s logically impossible by definition.
    • The laws of thermodynamics and mechanics. How heat engines work. (Later, I figured out all by myself how turbo-chargers work.)
    • I had to struggle hard with combinatorial mathematics. It doesn’t come naturally to me.
    • The calculus was moderately hard but the mechanics bit was easy.
    • I had many aha moments when learning probability distribution.
    • Supply and demand schedules are functions of price. Prices emerge in free markets. (See The Unbearable Silliness of Controlling Prices.)
    • Spontaneous order. Adam Ferguson’s insight that our artifactual world “is the result of human action, but not the execution of any human design.” (For more on that, see this post Order without Intent from Aug 2019.)
    • There are no natural resources; all resources are human made. Nature provides the stuff; humans make resources.
    • Technology is know-how. Technology is another word for a recipe. Technology is a “public good” and the flow of technology is a positive function of the stock of technology. Therefore we will never run out of resources. (For more on that, see The Joy of Counter-intuitive Truths.)
    • The importance of rules. Rules define institutions. Institutions define nations. Nations rise and fall with the rise and fall of institutions. Leaders matter but only to an extent.
    • Freedom of the individual matters in how peaceful and prosperous a society is. Freedom is endogenous — it comes from within. Freedom cannot be taken away from people who are determined to be free; and it cannot be bestowed on people who wish to be enslaved.
    • Lessons I learned from simple games. The tragedy of the commons. The prisoner’s dilemma.
    • The Coase theorem.
    • Methodological individualism. Why laissez-faire is absolutely critical for human flourishing.
    • The importance of civic and economic freedom. Speech, particularly. All other freedoms are grounded in it.
    • Private property rights.
    • The role of the entrepreneur in an economy. Mainstream economics does not appreciate this.
    • The inappropriateness of equilibrium analsyes. Important as a didactic tool but not for understanding the real world.
    • Lessons of public choice theory. That people are people; that it’s the same person who goes both to the polling booth and the supermarket. That merely getting elected does not suddenly give people the superpower to figure out “the public good.”
    • “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.” Hayek.
    • Why centralized, top-down planning fails always.
    • There are good economists and there are economists who advise the government. There’s little (if any) overlap. The ones favored by the state are usually “a bevy of camp-following whores” (to use Buchanan’s evocative phrase.)  (This needs to be explored in detail why.)
    • Why India fails to prosper. It’s pure bad luck. Nothing else. In fact it is all luck. In the lives of individuals, and collectives. It’s just luck. It’s in the “stars.”

So that’s it for now. I will address the other questions people have asked in a bit. Be well, do good work, and keep in touch.



Categories: AMA -- Ask me anything

5 replies

  1. Nice post. Thanks.
    One bullet says ‘people who’ and leaves it at that. May we have the rest of the sentence?

    Like

  2. If you wish, you may use grammarly.com for grammar and spelling correction.

    Like

  3. Atanu,

    Ahem! The name is Jadhav. Ajit Jadhav.

    If you will permit me, the exact (literal) translation is:

    “O myself,
    [emphatic] “no!” to non-existence; cause [or have it organized so as] to go towards the existence.
    [emphatic] “no!” to darkness; cause [or have it organized so as] to go towards the light.
    [emphatic] “no!” to death/perishing; cause [or have it organized so as] to go towards the imperishable.
    O myself, be [just aware of] physical stillness! be [just aware of] physical stillness! be [just aware of] physical stillness! ”

    It’s a “shaanti mantra” [SM for short]; it’s not a prayer / appeal to God. SM’s are just solemn utterances, but not prayers. They are used not for praying, but for transitioning yourself from the mindset of the mundane world to that of a prayer proper, and, after finishing the prayer, for transitioning yourself back to the mindset of the mundane world. Thus, they are addressed to one, oneself. Even the deities that help set the stage for the prayer proper, are mentioned only after the “prologue” SM fully ends. Similarly, the address/plea to the God(s) of a prayer is first fully concluded, and only then the “epilogue” of the SM begins. As such, SM’s contain just general remarks, primarily addressed to oneself rather than to God. (Supposed “gods”, actually principles, like “bramhaa” and “indra” might sometimes come in some SMs, but these to be taken only in in a vague, general, sense.)

    Just a few more points:

    “sat_” (सत्) exactly translates to Existence, not to Truth. The word for truth is: “satya”, that which is in conformance to existence / reality. “ta” त is “existent”, and “sat_” is that which is implied by (goes with) “ta”.

    By Sanskrit grammar, “om” cannot split as “a” + “u” + “m”. It can only split as “o” (as in calling someone) + “m” (self, mind, awareness, emotions, etc.). It’s a call to yourself, not to God. Appearance of “om” in “veda”s themselves is actually quite sparse, and relatively more recent, possibly a later-date interpolation. In fact, the most ancient “veda”, viz., “rugveda” till date does not contain a single “om”. So, uttering of “om” in a prayer is, by the ancient-most and the first source among “vedic” traditions, entirely optional!

    “maa” refers to a sharp “no!”. Imagine that you see someone about to get into something dangerous, like tripping over a banana peel, or about to touch a live electrical wire or so. How will you react? You will suddenly yell a sharp “no!” with all your energy! That’s “maa” for you! (lit.: with all parts of “m”). So, “maa” doesn’t refer to “me” here. Grammatically, “me” doesn’t fit here.

    There is no sense of someone leading you, speaking grammatically. Just a solemn affirmation you yourself do.

    A surprise, but the stillness in “shaanti” is the physical or bodily stillness. The idea is to focus on the material stillness so that the previous mental preoccupation (whether of the mundane world or of the prayer’s mindset) automatically comes down. The Sanskrit word for “peace,” as in the absence of war, is: अयुद्धम “ayuddhama”. That for “peace” in general is: सुम्न “sumna”. “Tranquility” also does not fit so well here as the plain “stillness” does. (Perhaps you can say “silence”, but not “peace”).

    But yes, it’s a very wonderful mantra. That’s what really matters. …”dhaai akhkhar pyaar ke…”

    Finally, thanks for answering my question in such a nice way. I appreciate it.

    Best,
    –Ajit
    PS: Feel free to cut this reply short, in which case I will run the full version at my blog.

    Like

Leave a Reply. Comment may be held for moderation.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: