My thoughts on Self and “Anatta”

My thoughts on Self and “Anatta”

Hello, this is Mahendra and I want to record my thoughts about the concept of self. It's often debated in philosophical and religious circles. There are people who believe that the self exists only as a concept and there's no real self as such. 

And some people even label the concept of self as a hallucination or a delusion, a virtual self. Buddhists refer to the concept of anicca, which means everything is impermanent. And on that basis, they say that a self cannot exist (anatta) as, if there is a self, it will obey the laws of anicca, which means the end result is no self (anatta). 

I take a slightly different view on the interpretation of the Buddhist concept. I think what the Lord Buddha said is that there is no unchanging or permanent self. The self or identity of self exists but  is subject to change just like everything else in the universe and therefore cannot be an unchanging entity as for example a soul. 

I am Mahendra Gonsalkorale as of now, this moment, but I'm not the same Mahendra Gonsalkorale who was born 80 odd years ago and I have probably nothing that I was born with which has persisted from my birth to my current state. I am a mixture of memories, ideas, likes, dislikes, concepts, beliefs, past memories, future projections, and even my physical being is changing all the time. In other words, there is a Mahendra Gonsalkorale but this entity is changing all the time and is evolving from a state or moment in time to another moment and as this process can move slowly or rapidly for the various constituents of Mahendra, I may appear as unchanged depending on the time scale applied. For example, if it was possible to construct a 5 year old Mahendra, there would be hardly any noticeable commonality even if it was possible to have a dialogue with him. But the Mahendra 1 week ago will still be immediately recognisable as Mahendra as he is now.  In this context, it is useful to go back to the well known “Ship of Theseus Paradox” on whether a ship which over time has changed all its components can be still called the original ship. 

All my cells have turned over so that I would not possess a single cell I was born with in 1944. But to me, the question is whether there is “something” which I might call the “core self”, upon which other things are added like your memories, your beliefs, your explanations, your opinions, and all the memories that you gather of the physical world outside. As a Doctor, I think this “core-self framework” has genetic and possibly other currently unknown elements which contribute to the object referred to as Mahendra. This “something” is in fact a hard to define “core framework”, which is unique to me, which I call Mahendra. The core framework is not a physical entity but is something which makes me unique. In other words, all humans are a “mind-body” complex where the mind component is a subtle framework which gathers all the components attributes, both physical attributes (not physical in the sense of a material object) and non-physical attributes, that makes a person a person, or self or him or her.

And this framework, although it is changing all the time, is still uniquely mine. The Mahendra Gonsalkorale framework does not apply to, say, my brother Daya or Raj. We may have common memories and features but we are different ever changing entities but still entities. My constantly changing identity within this entity is uniquely mine. 

We may have different memories. But within that core or within that framework, that outline of what I call Mahendra, there are things which are constantly changing. 

So the question is whether my belief in a framework, which I call Mahendra or self, is also untrue. And this is may be so because even a framework has to change all the time. But does it necessarily have to change in the way physical objects change? So my question is- “ is the self or identity of self, something that is there, but impermanent (anicca)?” And therefore, when we say anatta, which means there is no permanent soul (as there is in Hinduism), it means that you as a person or identity is constantly changing. And therefore, there's nothing within you which is unchanging, but this changing dynamically unstable self is still unique to you and separable from others. This separation is obvious physically but may not apply to the physically state alone. 

I find it a bit difficult to accept that there is no “core Mahendra” or “framework of Mahendra”, because I still pack things into this changing framework as I change physically. And if you talk to me and you talk to another friend of mine, we come across as quite different people with different ideas, different memories and so on. So going back to the Buddhist concept of anatta, I think what Lord Buddha meant to say is that although we may have an underlying consciousness stream or whatever you want to call it, which I label in my case as “Mahendra’s core framework”, it is not something which is consistent or constant, although it is distinct from the framework of others. For the purpose of living within a community of beings, it is helpful to think that we are not unchanging permanent objects but are selves with“frameworks” interacting with each other. We are given names to make living easier but we have  a huge amount of shared and interactive components. 

It is changing all the time because every microsecond I exist, I gather data, memory, information, which changes me. But my question is whether there is something which I used the term “Framework” which is unique to each person at birth but is undergoing change all the time since then. My contention at first appears to go against the “anatta” concept in Buddhism but on closer examination, there is no contradiction, as the “Framework” is also changing all the time. Why postulate a Framework at all? To me it is a satisfactory way of understanding “self” and its impermanence while preserving the uniqueness of a person.

Added on 02-02-2026.

A word of explanation on why I tried to interpret "self" a bit differently. I am influenced by Buddhist philosophy, especially the concept of "anicca" or impermanence.

An area which Western Philosophers and Scientists dismiss too easily is rebirth (is it because to them the concept is so ridiculous that it does not warrant any examination of evidence provided?)- Rebirth seems very unlikely for those who don't accept the existence of a soul (anatta) or lack of unchanging entities (anicca)?

I have looked at the evidence provided with an open mind, and certainly with no intention of convincing myself or others that the concept of rebirth is true. So many people dismiss it because they don't accept that it is even remotely possible and just laugh at the evidence provided. I looked at the evidence with an open mind.

To me, it is a fact that there are many genuine examples of people recalling past births. I won't go into the evidence in this email. These have been thoroughly double-checked for fraud, recall errors, etc., and it appears to me that some people do recall past lives. The fact that so few do, and that many have been shown to be fabricated, does not invalidate it. Even a single verified occurrence demands an explanation, -One cure for a 100% mortality disease is a true cure!

The only way I can explain is to look at the cycle of birth-living-death slightly differently. I don't think a critical thinker should rule out the possibility of recall of past births or the persistence of a past birth memory in someone because they don't like the concept. Even if they don't believe in rebirth (one way of explaining recall), they have to acknowledge this memory persistence and try to explain it rather than take the easy way out and just dismiss it.

Just suppose that memories, experiences, thoughts etc which get encoded in the brain during the life of a person. (I am, of course, regarding neural mechanisms as the method by which this happens and not some vague spiritual "essence"). Suppose we consider that some or all of these are stored in "core individual frameworks," as I call them, which are in the background and constantly exchange information among the various modules (sensory, motor, thoughts, memories), which together with the framework form the self? The module change is very rapid and extensive, whereas the encoding of information in the Framework is much slower. Slower changes, which are coded, become apparent only with the passage of time (hence the Mahendra now so different from the Mahendra the child). Rapidly changing information occurring all the time leads to a Mahendra, although similar, being different from Mahendra a few days ago. Here is where I go mad! Supposing the Framework data is changing but is in some form (energy) that can persist after death and is capable of finding a new abode in the form of a fertilised ovum? Sounds farfetched and you might rightly say no different from those who belive in a sould that migrates, Yes, but the difference is my idea of a farmework.  “Mahendra’s core framework” is not something which is consistent or constant, although it is distinct from the frameworks of others. If you say I am using the word "Core Framework" as an alternative to "soul", I can understand that, but the difference is that, unlike an unchanging soul, my Framework is also subject to change. Just like the DNA we inherit, it might eventually be shown that it does exist, changing all the time so that just as "self" evolves through a life time, so does the framework survive just passing on from one living human to another who is not the same person who died (soul theory)  but who carries "information" carried over from the information of the one who died.

I am not expecting anyone to agree with me (apart from perhaps a Philosopher, as philosophers thrive on ideas that come to their heads, unlike Scientists, who only accept after going through the data, explain the implications of the data with a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, and then accept or reject).

It is just an attempt to explain how a person (A) can die --> be born again as a new distinct person (B), conditioned by information passed to him with the death of A. Here, A and B are not the same but share some data from A's previous life. The change in the lifetime of A can be so much that without the evidence we have that Boy A grew up to be Man A, it would be like looking at two people. I postulate that this "Core framework has a biological basis quite similar to genes, but as yet undiscovered (just as the Higgs Boson at one time!).

The moral implications of rebirth in Buddhism is that your current life events are conditioned (but not determined) by the actions of your previous life.

Dhushy video - a test

Dhushy video

a test

Please click on the link to watch the Rose View Video. Ignore the first picture, which says "unknown error". The Video will appear.

Here is the link to click on.

dhushy gardener

MY PONDERINGS ON KARMA

MY PONDERINGS ON HOW IS IT POSSIBLE FOR “KARMA” TO AFFECT A LIFE TO BE BORN AND IF SO TO WHAT EXTENT.

Mahendra Gonsalkorale. 21.05.2025

 

Time	Heriditary	Environment	Culture	Life style	Diseases	Life Partnerships	Chance factors
Life Time	Genes Parental	Family born to	Customs	Diet	Hypertension	Married or single	natural disasters
	Genes Species	Period born in	Religious	Exercise	Diabetes	Friends asscociated	random occurences
		Country born in	Family
			Group
At Birth	Genes	yes	yes		congenital		yes

The above table is a very simplified (over-simplified) way of showing the main factors that influence a life over a lifetime and what factors affect a life that is just born.

To start with, we know that life starts when an ovum is fertilised by a sperm, resulting in a zygote which continues to multiply and grow in size and, quite miraculously, forms a foetus which matures and prepares to lead a separate life outside the mother’s womb. While it is in the mother’s womb, long before it can be held responsible for any “actions”, its future is greatly influenced by the genes it has inherited, and by the health of the mother (and these genes go back multiple generations). I cannot see a foetus having a “personality” and having the ability to make “decisions”. For example, it cannot decide to be aborted, or induced to be born earlier or to be born by caesarean section. If the delivered baby has after-effects because of the manner in which it was born, then the parents, healthcare workers, healthcare facilities, etc, will have to be held responsible; certainly not the foetus/baby!

If we entertain the concept that a past life (of this newborn) is in some way affecting its future by having an influence on all the factors given above, I cannot see any conceivable or even a highly speculative and imaginary way it could happen. You are talking about the karmic influences of the parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, family, medical personnel, health care facilities, all being intertwined in an unimaginable way to produce a scene where all these operate to produce the final effect. To me, this is impossible.

Let us now get to the genetic stage and a possible way of the foetus’s genes being affected by a past life (stream of consciousness). Firstly, it is then necessary for causes and results of actions in any birth to become encoded in the gene. To the scientific mind, it cannot be accepted that a “spirit” carrying vital information passes into the foetus. At a less detailed level, if some key features (to be defined) can pass through an identifiable energy form, yet to be discovered, then we have an answer. The fact that none has been discovered so far is not evidence against it.

(All living things, including humans, constantly emit a ghostly glow – and it appears to vanish almost as soon as we die. Monitoring this signal could one day help track forest health or even detect diseases in people.

The existence of this barely perceptible glow has been controversial, but it is thought to be the result of a process called ultraweak photon emission. Mitochondria and other energy-producing machinery in our cells involve molecules gaining and losing energy, in turn emitting the equivalent of a few photons a second per square centimetre of skin tissue. However, these “biophotons” are extremely difficult to detect and disentangle from other biological processes or light sources, such as the radiation produced by any warm object.-New Scientist May 5^th 2025)

I don’t know but if the “glow” at death could be harnessed and examined in detail, it may yield some answers.

Let us imagine that some form of energy escapes as death occurs. If we take Karma as operational in the next birth, there are huge problems with making it a viable hypothesis. Some questions are:- how far can this energy travel? Just within the immediate environment or across the seas, across the universe? How does the stream “know” when the ideal candidate foetus is found? Not only that, the ideal candidate for rebirth could be a non-human animal or even a deva in another realm!

Even if we, for the sake of argument, propose that this is possible, it is unimaginable to think that this extruded energy form is transmitting billions of encoded data through space and time, to an infinitesimally tiny target, potentially millions of miles away. It could be argued of course, that our concept of space and time is flawed, and there is a big rethink about space and time at the moment.

Even if that is a possibility for the sake of carrying on this thinking, look at all the factors that determine or affect the future life of a person as I have outlined in my table. If, for example, we say that the person who died in the plane crash did so because of Karma, then an interminable series of events must be brought in. He was in the plane because he was taking up a new job for which he owed much to many people (his karma determined his success), his plane was delayed because the plane was waiting for a delayed passenger who got delayed because the taxi he took met with an accident which happened because the taxi driver was tired because he hardly slept worrying about his new born unwell child (Karma of taxi driver, his wife, his child etc)… etc., you get the gist?

Random events do happen in Nature and people living at that particular time and area can be affected by it, sometimes to the extent that they lose their lives, as in a volcanic eruption. To postulate that you were born in an area when volcanoes can erupt unexpectedly and you happened to be there when the volcano erupted unexpectedly because of your karama, is the height of fanciful thinking.

I don’t know the answers but to postulate that your future life events are determined by data carried in your genes which came to you by some form of complex energy from the being that preceded you as it died and passed on to you, requires considerable faith.  That your life is affected by your genes is of course a fact, and you have no control at all on your genetic inheritance when you were born.

The question of why some people recall a past life remains to be explained. I don’t dismiss these stories as fantasy, as some scientists do. They need intense scrutiny to rule out fraud and explainable factors such as, a lot of stories being too general and easily applicable to many in a nonspecific manner. But there are some which have passed this test and remain a verified story awaiting a scientific explanation. It is a pity that a global scientific experiment has not been mounted with well defined protocols and methods which are acceptable to the most sceptic mind. If such an initiative is launched and incontestable evidence is found, then we have to find an explanation for it and one experiment I would love to see is a very intense and high powered one to find out whether some form of energy is emitted as we die. This would still not explain how intricate data is transmitted but that would be the next step.

To my mind, all these are interesting questions to an inquiring mind. To have too much faith in a past life and past karma is not a good thing. It can lead one to a deterministic and fatalistic way of thinking. On the other hand, if you believe that your actions do have repercussions and it is good to be mindful about what you do, just as you avoid the action of smoking cigarettes to avoid the risk of heart and lung disease (the result), it is a good thing.

I am a firm believer of the process of Evolution. It not only explains the diversity of life on our planet in a beautiful and methodical way, but also forms a good basis for morality. Successful species were successful because they collaborated and cooperated. They learnt that without love, empathy and kindness to other living beings, they would disappear. This love however is conditional in the sense that as animals need to survive, they had to kill some animals at times and also had to defend themselves by attacking  and killing marauders. The universal love which we value, evolved as a later development. The starting point was love for their offspring, mates, close associates and “herd”.

The Good Enough Life by Daniel Miller

The Good Enough Life byDaniel Miller.

I found this review quite challenging and interesting. I shall place an order for itsoon.

Mahendra

Daniel Miller’s book ‘The Good Enough Life’ is an original exploration of what life could and should be, based on his study of the residents of Skerries. We had the chance to ask him some questions ahead of his appearance at the We Invented the Weekend Festival on Sunday 16 June.

 

Q: Does the ‘good life’ as typified by the residents of Skerries represent a transplantable model or framework that might be applied elsewhere? Or must a truly happy community reach an equivalent equilibrium independent of outside influences?

A: In my book I detail the many factors that have come together to explain why people praise their town as the basis of a good life. For example, it is a town large enough that people feel some autonomy and small enough to expect to greet friends when they go out for a walk. I show why it was important that the community was largely created by migrants (blow-ins) rather than its historical population. I examine their deep commitment to family and the community. There is an egalitarian ethos and for the retirees I worked with, a freedom from obligations that may last now for decades. I assume that other places favoured by their residents share some of these traits and lack others. While entirely other factors may be relevant.

In considering outside factors, for Skerries, as an Irish town, this includes a relatively stable government, and a sense that they have benefited considerably from the EU. I also noted a marked desire to differentiate themselves from what they see as the divisive politics of Northern Ireland, as opposed to their highly consensual local politics. So yes, an equivalent place elsewhere is likely to require its own equilibrium of both inside and outside influences.

 

Q: How should we measure success and happiness in a society that often equates these concepts with wealth and consumption? What alternative metrics could be more meaningful?

A: The key point here is that we should not be imposing our criteria for what makes a good life onto another population. My book is not based on my judgment that this was a happy place. I wrote this book because the people of the town went on and on about how much they loved living there and saw it as the source of their happiness. My job was to find out why?

With regard to wealth and consumption, the standard of living in this average Irish town is now slightly higher than the UK and it may be significant that most of the people I worked with were born in poverty and appreciate the benefits of living what they would call a comfortable life. But status in the town today comes almost entirely from public commitments to environmental welfare and sustainability, while conspicuous consumption is scorned.

“For these reasons the key metric is whatever the people themselves use to measure their sense that they are living the good enough life, and then the task is to explain why they favour this measure.”

 

Q: How do different cultures define and pursue a ’good’ life? Are there universal principles, or is it highly context-dependent?

A: I have worked as an anthropologist in places ranging from India and London, to the Caribbean and Ireland. The universal that lies behind my book comes from the observation that many societies have a similar term to our word good. A word that links being a morally upright (good) person to the idea of having an enjoyable (good) time. Linking these two seems to be an ideal, irrespective of whether one does in fact depend on the other.

But both senses of this word, what makes a person moral and what makes life enjoyable, will be highly context dependent. The farmers I lived with in an Indian village would look aghast at the criteria that I found in secular Skerries.

“My discipline of anthropology is committed to reminding people of just how distinct each population remains with regard to such judgments. We need to respect the degree that things we assume are obvious and neutral are actually nothing of the kind.”

 

Q: How does our environment, both natural and built, shape our happiness and quality of life? Are there particular types of environments that are universally beneficial?

A: I have lived in several places where people depended mainly on what they grew as farmers or fished and had very few commodities. Some were mainly content and others mainly miserable. I don’t romanticise the condition of peoples who have limited access to medicine and education, whose economic security depends on the weather and whose lives are generally shorter than ours. In turn I suspect you have been to cities you really would rather not live in and some you find attractive propositions. Clearly living in a city is no guarantee of a good life either.

One thing about the environment is for sure –  if Skerries is a happy place, it’s certainly not because of the weather (!). There are elements of the environment most of us enjoy, such as beautiful landscapes while few find inspiration in an industrial wasteland. But more generally I think it is social and cultural values that have much more influence on happiness and the quality of our lives.

 

Q: How has technology changed the way we form and maintain communities? Can virtual communities offer the same depth of connection as physical ones?

As with many populations, people in Skerries tend to be very negative if you ask them about social media and smartphones in general. But the same people can be quite positive when I discuss particular apps, or how Facebook has become a community platform. Older people suffer greatly from a digital divide if they feel unable to use these technologies but may then enjoy a reconnection with their youth if they do subsequently master them.

What we need right now are not quick judgments suggesting these technologies are good or bad, but long-term scholarly observations of the hundreds of ways these technologies impact our lives.

That’s why I lived in Skerries for 16 months before thinking that I had any understanding of this question.  Dividing the world into the physical and the virtual doesn’t work either. Hardly anyone lives just online or without any online. It a constant blending of the two.

Our team has written thousands of pages based on our observations around the world. You can read about the results of this research through our free books, such as The Global Smartphone, or How The World Changed Social Media. The point is that discussion of this question needs to be evidence led

MAKING SENSE OF THE WORLD

MAKING SENSE OF THE WORLD

Mahendra Gonsalkorale 27^th November 2024

Mahendra's Musings no: 9 

Most human beings are aware of their emotions which are broadly a) pleasant b) unpleasant or c) Neutral. Emotions are inextricably tied up with past memories and future anticipatory thoughts affected by the experience of the present moment (which by the way is a misnomer as the passage from moment to moment is so short lived that it is better described as continuing experience of time). 

Humans also have an expectation that there is some sort of moral law/s which operates in life so that life lends itself to “purpose “or “meaning”. Purpose has no universally agreed definition as it is mostly associated with religious thinking. God created this World with a “purpose” and we are all acting within this stage with expectation of rewards for good behaviour and bad rewards (punishment) for bad behaviour. There is “good” and “evil” in this world. This makes sense to many people as it seems intuitively reasonable to have order and harmony over which we are at least partly responsible. (There is is a debate about this on whether we have “free will” or not, but I won’t go into that) . This strengthens those who believe in moral principles that ought to determine how we live. The place of random events has never been well described or explained in a moral context especially how random events fit in this scheme of “cause and effect- (the Buddhist concept of paticca samupada at least in part), be it through a supernatural power or through the Buddhist concept of karma (actions) and vipaka (effects). There is no easy, plausible explanation for how random events can lead to a big change in the “destiny” (or future life events) of a person in a “fair” manner. Random events cannot be judgmental or deterministic unless randomness itself is redefined as deterministic through poorly understood means. Maybe through cultural conditioning but this concept of “fairness and unfairness” keeps creeping up. 

Evolution offers some insight into this but not in a moralistic way, but through the concept of the main driver for evolution: the propagation of the gene (through which expressions are made). If we consider behaviour in human beings and how human beings developed into the most sophisticated animals on Earth, we cannot escape from the fact that individual animals had a better chance to survive and adapt if they cooperated with common goals. This is not an all or none approach. There are enough examples of humans who behaved frankly selfishly and still managed to advance their place in Society. Societies themselves can become corrupted with selfishness but history tells us that in the long run, such societies did not flourish. This is to be expected in a process which is not governed by moral principles. Moral principles are not absolute but have evolved to help the survival of the gene. It can, therefore, work both ways. There is no judge to pass judgment. When a gene mutates, it has no idea of the result. Those resulting in advantageous characterstics will survive and pass it on. It can be explained by pure logical thought and does not rely on faith or belief systems. 

For Physicalists who believe that all and everything, including obviously tangible physical things and even more intangible things such as emotions, empathy, appreciation of beauty, love, hatred, and compassion have a physical basis, they will find it hard to explain why we should indulge in moral behaviour. They could use a pure Darwinian model as I have done. Those with more bimodal explanations will have either a totally dualistic view or a somewhat ill-defined view that there “is something other than the physical”, with some resorting to the get-out clause of "spirituality" (which remains vague). Those who do that are perilously close to the creation myth although I admit that I may have got that wrong. 

The other big problem is the methods we use to understand and explain. The most logical and appealing method is the scientific method. This, however, always carries the caveat that Science is not about absolute truths but about providing the best explanation for observed and validated phenomena by a rigorous method. Science also has the immense advantage of showing concrete examples of the emergence of various technological aids to make human existence more palatable. These are what we call “visible validations”. Science is never the kind of purely empirical enterprise it is generally reputed to be. Ontological as well as epistemological presuppositions do inevitably play an essential role. 

Philosophers are just thinkers- pouring over thoughts, concepts, beliefs and offering their own explanations which can never be truly validated. No philosophical belief has ever been validated by an empirical finding. They remain the view of the Philosopher/s which will appeal to the logic of those who study them. But Philosophers to their credit, also recognise that their concepts are dynamic and subject to change. 

This leaves the Theists who firmly believe that the “Truth” has been revealed and it can only be one. Either one religion is correct or ALL are incorrect. Their systems are not open to intellectual scrutiny (as science is). They either rely on texts handed down through centuries (or verbal records before that ) , with no consistency and a large amount of variation and interpretation of “what has been said by the Lord or Religious figure”. The other claim is that human beings are somehow born with the innate capacity to “self-realise” the truth with no safeguards on whether this is a “self-delusion” instead of an enlightenment. The fact that many of these people who claim to be enlightened have seen or experienced (depending on their faith), Jesus Christ, Allah, the Buddhas and other religious figures supports my view. I also ask the question why these enlightened souls did not then proceed to teach and help all of us poor mortals who are blind and thus help us to know the Truth. You may counter that by pointing to famous powerful religious figures who apparently do that but again they use Faith as their instrument, and not reason. 

Of course, some facts are always true, such as 2+2 is 4, the square root of 9 is 3, a triangle has 3 sides, etc. These are material truths and not “mind” truths; they do not deal with questions of morality, emotions, behaviour, etc.and I doubt whether they can be considered in the same way. When Roger Penrose says that consciousness can be located in microtubules in neurons, we are no closer to understanding the real nature of consciousness. 

So, what are we left with? It boils down in my view as to make a decision on how best to spend our time between birth and death with least discomfort, maximum comfort (or non-discomfort) . It helps if you realise this can be truly achieved by considering three important elements in this scenario. Firstly your concept of self identity, ego etc (probably impermanent), secondly that you live in a society or group which includes apart from your immediate loved ones, other humans (and animals) and lastly that the first two exist in a material Universe (a material reality) which in not a figment of our imagination although the true nature of it will remain somewhat illusory because the interpretation of our world “outside” which is also part of our world “inside” will always be a slave to how we recognise the world outside though the very apparatus we are questioning. The fact that we cannot truly “know” in an absolute empirical sense the outside material world is interpreted by some, wrongly in my view, as that what we sense is an illusion. But like Einstein famously said, “the moon is there even when I don’t look at it”, and I challenge a believer who thinks that all this is a virtual reality, to close their eyes and then walk in a space they are taken to without being given any information about it. You can then witness him/her it walking in this unreal workd till he stumbles on an obstacle he cannot see and therefore according to him, does not exist! The only way he won’t stumble is if he is given some information about the space he has visited before (and obstacles he could expect) and has a visuo-spatial concept of what it is like. 

I invite my blog readers to please comment and come forward with their own views. I extend my apologies to those patient ones who arrived at this point for some elements of repetition

The importance of being open and humble Mahendra's Musings Part 8

The importance of being  open and humble

Mahendra's Musings Part 8

Mahendra Gonsalkorale 22.11.2024

In my younger days, one of my most significant weaknesses was not just having a strong view ( e.g., whether there is or isn't a God, a soul, rebirth, whether Communism/socialism is the best form of governance etc), but once I formed my opinion (after due consideration of the "facts"), I thought I was right, but more importantly, I also inferred from this that those who had opposing beliefs were wrong. This led to unhealthy (and arrogant views) such as the view that  people who believed in God were plain stupid and ignorant. When I reflect now, I became aware that these attitudes were at least partly due to my respect for some of my close uncles who harboured such views. The consequences of cultural influences in shaping a young mind are often underestimated or unrecognised. This realisation leads to greater understanding and greater tolerance.

I have changed that way of thinking completely. My view is not to believe in absolutes and to accept that human beings are very fallible, impressionable and hugely influenced not just through genes but even more so through culture and upbringing. The perfect “all-knowing” person is a figment of imagination ( “I” think!).

I very much doubt whether a Human being who knows everything exists; many “think” they know! Everything boils down to beliefs, which are either based on the scientific method of observing phenomena, devising hypotheses to explain them, and testing them with rigour, or acceptance based on Religious or other forms of Authority or simply on what they are most comfortable with at the time of belief. Human beings are, by nature, curious, and that innate curiosity has evolutionary origins related to survival.

My stance now is to form an opinion based on what appears to be reliable evidence but to accept that other equally logical views can be held by others, and one must respect them, listen to them, understand them and have empathy, and cultivate the admirable quality of humility. There are limits, of course, e.g., I cannot accept that stoning a wife who has been unfaithful is a reasonable way of dealing with the issue! But on the whole, form your opinion/view, be able to explain it (I don't like to use the word "defend" it) and do your best to understand opinions that are different and for your sake and that of others, do not get emotional and appoint yourself as the saviour set on a mission to convert the whole world to your way of thinking. The benefits? You will be calmer, happier, and an easier person to associate with. You will become a humbler and better Human being. You will be more comfortable dissolving your “self” within a community of minds and contributing to a happier society.

Coming to the oft-heard lament by the older generation, "In my days when the world was so much better", I can show, using all the available data, that the world now is far better than it ever was. Just look at advances in understanding diseases and their prevention and treatment, the number of people with at least one meal a day, simple housing, safe and available water supply, gender equality, human rights, etc- the list is endless. I am not suggesting that the world is now perfect; far from it. If you care to listen to a recording of a radio discussion in the 1950s (or before), even then, they talk of the "good old days"! This is understandable, but there is no reason to laugh at or ridicule them.

Human beings have agency, which leads to Self-image (regardless of whether there is a self or not!). Self-image is of importance to most human beings and when we understand that, we respect that and behave accordingly.  We become better social partners and community members with a healthy respect for different views and diversity. Advances in knowledge and understanding are on a non-stop conveyor belt moving forward, but they have yet to reach a final destination and are unlikely to do so ever. It is dynamic.  The world would be so much better if one could associate wisdom with knowledge.

In short, we are all fallible; nobody knows everything, and we all have views, opinions, and beliefs. Knowledge is not "knowing". Although some people believe there is one "Truth" (especially the religious-minded), if you subscribe to that, try to accept the possibility that you may be wrong and be sympathetic to those with a different view. This is our only life, which will one day end with death, something that has occurred a trillion times or more in human history! What matters always is the interval between birth and death. Do things now that matter to us and future generations. Consider what we do now that would contribute to the welfare of those around you in concentric circles (Roper's concept), future generations, and our planet.

Unless, of course, you believe that there is life after death, which will bring a whole new dimension to your thinking! But even then, my contention that what we do now would contribute to your welfare and that of those around you will hold true