Second Main Section at Thean Archives Science Fiction

(this is an unfinished thought piece)

🔆 1 - Introduction | Operating System Redux

history, culture, civilisation, progress, modernity, decolonisation, values, shared ideals

These words capture an arc of ongoing conversations in the modern world. Whether we choose to engage with them or not, and regardless of our opinion for the jargon of colloquial discourses, they represent salient notions in a reality we share both as individuals and as group formations. A variety of intersecting and interweaving conflicts plague us today such that we’ve lost rooting on matters of thinking, being and doing, and an evolving cornucopia of discourse jargon struggles to help us cope. Such words are listed here to give scale to the intent at hand. To speak of ‘Indian civilisational consciousness’ is to penetrate matters of history, memory, identity, purpose, origin, society, culture, temporality, morality and more. If we understand civilisational consciousness and Indian as self-evident, we miss fundamental and necessary discussions. To reiterate this, let us examine the constituents separately:

Consciousness

What is this phenomenon? Is it subjective or does it exist independent What does it mean to speak of the consciousness of a group? Even phenomenologically, speaking of consciousness necessitates inquiry on matters of meaning and perception. This compounds if we move beyond the phenomenon to its manifestations, and more so if we scale it above the level of individual. What even comes from considering groups conscious?

Civilization

Civil + -ise + -ation + -al- to bring social, cultural, political, material and moral states more civil, or ideal, advanced, desired. The march of ‘Western civilisation’ derives imperative from the claim it brings peace, progress and liberty to all humans and countries, that its specific paradigm for what constitutes ‘civil’ is universally applicable, and even that it has a moral duty to bring this civil-ise-ation to other people.

India

Again not a matter as simple as we might hope. A nation is essentially what its people choose to believe it is- whether they commonly subscribe to a creed, culture or a constitution. And our nation is split among those who only claim rights from India- a constitutional entity less than a century old, and those who feel a bond to Bhārata- a cultural entity several millennia old. What is India, and what values it contains, is driving factor in ‘Indian civilisational consciousness.’

There is a method to the above pedantry and semantics:

I posit our problem statement as the loss of rooting for human beings on matters of thinking, feeling and doing- with group, species and planetary level externalities beyond the unit of individual. And a proposed solution I articulate is Indian civilisational consciousness. Clearly then, this latter thing must address the original problem.

In other words- whatever Indian civilisational consciousness is described to be, it must necessarily contain plausible resolutions to three existential issues, at multiple scales of manifestation- 1) the problem of thinking/knowing, 2) the problem of meaning/being, and 3) the problem of doing/achieving. Let me illustrate with examples:

Is climate change real? How real? Is it caused or being accelerated by human activity? If yes, what’s the damage we’re running up? | knowing
What is money, and who gets to define or control it? What is ownership, and how ought it be distributed? Do we centralise it, and if yes in what entity? Do we allow it to be as things are in the wild? If yes, how do we reconcile human passions and compassions with it? | knowing and meaning
Should some nations not have access to or acquisition of certain things? Why? How is this decided, and who decides? How do we separate people and nation such that penalties levied on the latter are not incidental on the former? | meaning/being
What should we be dedicating our growing organisational capabilities to, as we begin to approach species-level group formation? What does it mean for our planet to have reserves of nuclear weaponry while children are still born to hunger, poverty and lack of opportunity? | being and purpose
Are we to let technology disrupt human existence such that humanity itself shrinks against the rise of silicon, virtual realities and attention hijacking? How do we stop/alter the course? | purpose/deed

As might be apparent by now- what I’m hitting at are, brace for it-

epistemology, ontology, teleology

how do we know, what do we know, what do we do with the knowledge

There is understandably cognitive fatigue around these terms, largely because they’ve been obscure for too long, and have become colloquial without commensurate acculturation in recent times. In fact, beginning with the next section, I will not use them again until the conclusion. I imply them in the framework here to affirm that there are planetary issues both at the macro and micro that require resolution at core levels, and to operate at these levels we must begin from root anew. It will not suffice to ask, for example, how can we fix capitalism/communism for an economy-society-ecology matrix more conducive. Instead we may wonder why we need divide things into such boxes in the first place. As words like decolonisation try to capture and thinkers like Balagangadhara have seminally detailed- the psychological and sociological operating system we currently use is not our own. Further, the incumbent operating system is the one that has brought us to the current state of affairs- so it would be insanity of the kind Einstein described to think it will somehow show us solutions once it’s pushed us off the edge.

What we need acknowledge is that decolonisation, quite like atheism, is only the creation of empty space- a rejection and not a creation. A genuine Indian take will use a fundamentally different operating system to explain itself. Such an operating system need be internalised and applied, for without this ‘decolonisation’ stands helpless against the question- what lens to adopt, once one is removed? It is only after the alternate lens to wear is clearly defined that we may approach old problems afresh, and in doing so could offer solutions hitherto not considered. Moreover, we know from experience that empty spaces are avenues of exploitation for other operating systems. The vaccum left by removal of ‘colonial lens’ may well be taken over by ‘communist lens’ or ‘consumerist lens’ if our endeavour stops at the level of rejection and rhetoric. And very soon, if we’re not careful, all lenses will be subsumed to the grand and attention-hijacking lens of technology (and those who own/control it).

Put simply, an operating system (OS) is a set of code (or a language) that manages the interaction of computing hardware with users, and also with other sets of code (software). Similarly, a human OS is a set of code (or lexical and semiotic memes, normative protocols, cultural motifs and more) that manages the interaction of an individual with other individuals, with groups, and among groups. The prevalent OS for our species today is the Western one, of recent origin but widespread installation- built upon a trajectory of colonisation, exploitation, slavery and conversion. Decolonisation begins with the realisation of this OS, proceeds through degrees of uninstallation, but must culminate with an alternate OS to install. We cannot call this a ‘new’ code, for reality is indeed as Shri Aurobindo observed-

The human mind, in its progress, marches knowledge to knowledge, renews and enlarges previous knowledge- often obscured or overlaid, seizes on clues old and imperfect, and is led by them to new discoveries.

To take license a final time before we proceed then- what I attempt is not a new epistemological, ontological and teleological framework, but the redux of an ancient, resilient and profound one- the Indian framework. In this work, I use the framework to study select words and roots of the Sanskrit language, apply them to describing Indian civilisational consciousness, and speculate how it might approach the existential dilemmas of modern times. Along the way- at each step in fact- I hope to show how a different OS yields not only profoundly different solutions, but causal framings and problem statements to begin with. This is how the journey will specifically pan, commencing with the next section:

2 - Recalibration

3 - Meaning at the Bloom of Word and Sound

4 - the Macrocosm | from bṛh to bhārata

5 - the Microcosm I from bhṛ to brahma

6 - kṛ bhū cit | Indian Civilisational Consciousness

7 - Dharma, that is the Satya

8 - The Kriyā, Bhāva and Citta

9 - Conclusion

🔆 2 - Root Firmware | Sat, Bhāva, Kriyā

Do you believe in god?

Can we replace the word god above with ‘deva’, and still be asking the same thing? To a system running the incumbent OS- sure, deva is the same as god, and in fact is lesser than God- with the capital G. But ask the reverse- is god/God the same as deva? The word ‘dev’ is derived from root √div, which is translated as ‘to shine.’ Accordingly, deva is an embodiment of shining, or a celestial/divine body. But this elides the philosophical analogy Indian thought draws between light and consciousness- which it considers two forms of the same phenomenon. As light on its own is without attributes, but takes the form of whatever it falls on- goes the understanding- similarly is consciousness on its own without attributes, or nirguṇa, but takes the form of whatever it falls on, ie becomes saguṇa. A deva is thus an embodiment of consciousness, or a force to be drawn and channelised in the mind, itself but an aspect of a para-causal monad, brahman, that pervades reality. Let us ask from this understanding- do you believe in deva? Do you think there can be/should be only one Deva? Do you cognise or reject the presence of powerful mental phenomena?

As we can see, the first set of questions and the latter set are not the same, and are inquiring upon fundamentally different things. This difference alludes to a nature of how we perceive and parse reality- via language- commonly expressed as the pithy- ‘language creates reality.’ The intuition at play here as come to many, in different ways:

The true alchemists do not change lead into gold; they change the world into words - William H. Gass

The world is made of words. And if you know the words that the world is made of, you can make of it whatever you wish. - Terence McKenna

The structure of language determines not only thought, but reality itself. - Noam Chomsky

Some 2 million years ago, from what we can tell, homo sapiens did not exist. 5 million years before that, even the ape ancestor we share with chimpanzees did not yet walk the planet. Did reality not exist at the time? What does it mean to say that language creates reality, or that reality is language? Interpretation can take three directions:

the language (and consequent semantic/semiotic memeplex) we use influences how we perceive reality.
math, physical laws, DNA- these and their structures can be compared to language and syntax.
reality is, in essence, without form- it derives constitutive or manifesting ground from language.

Found first in the Yajurveda, the above is a cardinal mahāvākya (a great sentence or proposition) of Indian thought. It well captures the essence of the four principle mahāvākya- a fundamental unity of ātman and brahman, or consciousness immanent and transcendent respectively- as in the microcosm, so in the macrocosm; as in the macrocosm, so in the microcosm. Similarly, as in the brahman, so in the ātman, and vice versa- the individual, or jīva, which otherwise appears discrete and separate an entity, is in fact a manifestation of brahman- the supreme and whole of existence.

The ancient Sanskrit grammarian Bhartṛhari, who would have subscribed to this view, asserted that the true meaning behind sound or utterance was revealed, with a flash of insight called sphoṭa, after the manifestation of sentence (not with word or verbal root). If true, this compounds at the level of a mahāvākya such that it reveals not just any meaning but the dravyārtham, root meaning of Existence. It makes a mahāvākya what Bhartṛhari knew as Śabda Brahman- Sound as Brahman or Satya- or Logos. This tethering not to the origin-state but the end-state of things represents a teleological view of the world, one where meaning does not so much originate from a source as manifest at a destination. There is another way to understand this:

Through sound is non-sound brought to being.

Through being is non-being thought upon.

In thought alone can non-thought find voice.

This is to say that only manifestation can give ontic form to the notion of non-manifestation, even if we conjugate causally that former comes from the latter. This is why the Logos stands at the end of time- for that alone can give perspective even to the Logos before time, which in a tautology profound, is non-existent. This is parsed in Indian thought as the subtle difference between dhātus √as and √bhu. Both imply being, or existing, but while √as yields sat, or pure existence, √bhu yields bhava- or existence/being along a temporal sequence. Put another way, while sat is simply ‘being’, bhava is ‘coming into being’. Satya to the Indian mind then is quite different to “Reality” or “Truth” as understood by the West, the latter best represented by Philip Dick’s words- “reality is that which doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it.” To this the Indian response is- “reality is that which doesn’t go away, period.” Satya just is, it exists- √as- independent of anything and unmoved by the arrow of time. Therefore, Satya exists at the end of time just as much as it might at the origin of it. And the Indian endeavour is to come into a state of Satya. But how is such a thing to be done? By adhering to the mahākāvya, of course. One must manifest in the microcosm what is true for the macrocosm. Let us then begin at the latter and understand what is True, or sat.

Macrocosm- brahmāṇda | brahman | brahma | √bṛh

When applied not only to individual being but to ontology as a whole, the principle unfolds insight on the matter of civilisational being. Indeed, the very notion of ‘civilisational consciousness’ finds rationale through it.

dhātus are what words spring from, or how they are accomplished. They are the seeds of language. Some words derive directly from dhātus, for example bṛhat from √bṛh. Others are born as a quality, or guṇa, of a dhātu, for example dharmaḥ from √dhṛ (+√man). Still more emerge through the principle of vṛddhi, or increment, like gautamaḥ from √gu (+tamas).

बृहत् | bṛhat

ati + √bṛh = bṛhat

large, great, big, bulky | wide, broad, extensive, far-extended | vast, ample, abundant | strong, powerful | long, tall; | full-grown | compact, dense | eldest, or oldest | bright | clear, loud (as sound)
[-ती] a large lute | the lute of Nārada | a symbolical expression for the number ‘thirty-six’ | a part of the body between the breast and backbone | a mantle, wrapper | a reservoir | the egg-plant | N. of a metre | a speech
c*omp. अङ्ग, -काय a. large-bodied, gigantic | भानुः fire, the sun; N. of Viṣṇu.| भासa. very bright, brightly shining | _ind. g_reatly, clearly, brightly | रथः** an epithet of Indra.
supreme | big | broad | full-grown | great | greater than greatest | highly | huge | immense | large | mighty | absolute | ultimate

dhātu

a constituent or essential ingredient | elementary substance | basic word of verbal form

A single dhātu can yield a śabda mālā of profound consequence. But √bṛh is sheer and unqualified. From excessive (`अति`) pouring forth (`बृह्`) comes `बृहत्`- fully grown, wide, broad, strong. Yet the guṇa can destroy as much as it could create.

Whether the expanse is of √bṛh or of √barh, what gives direction? what brings intent?

मनस् | manas

मन् | √man - to consider, think, know

मनन् | manan - thinking| cogitation| reflection| cognition

the internal organ or अंत:-कारण of perception and cognition, the faculty or instrument through which thoughts enter or by which objects of sense affect the soul

the faculty of discrimination or judgment | thought, idea, fancy, imagination, conception, design, purpose, intention

the seat of intellectual operations and of emotions understanding, intellect; soul, heart; conscience; thought, conception; imagination; cogitation, reflexion; inclination, desire, will; mood, disposition

the growth, shining and outpouring of Mind, ie √bṛh + √man, is called `ब्रह्मन्` | brahman - literally the growth, expansion, development, swelling of the mind

the expansion, strength and infinity of √bṛh is, at ontological level, the expansion of Mind.
The cosmological Word, as opposed to vāc, the word of man | the primal mantra.
The self existent, absolute, eternal - an object not of worship but of meditation and knowledge | super sensuous, beyond comprehension and cognition | cannot be understood even inferentially
The embodiment of bṛhatvam - ceaseless expansiveness.
Vedic utterance, or mantra
Unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent | gound of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond | transpersonal, personal and impersonal

The Supreme Mind | impersonal and divested of all quality and action | brahman is both the efficient and material cause of the visible universe | the all-pervading consciousness | the essence from which all created things are produced and into which they are absorbed
The unchanging reality amidst and beyond the world, ie, sat-cit-ānanda (being-consciousness-bliss). It is the universal substrate from which material things originate and to which they return after their dissolution ⇒ the base dhātu itself.

`सत्` | sat

`चित्` | cit

`आनन्द` | ānanda

`ब्रह्मा` | Brahmā - supreme consciousness personified

The universe was enveloped in darkness, and the self-existent | Brahmā manifested himself dispelling the gloom | He first created the waters and deposited in them a seed | This seed became a golden egg, in which he himself was born as Brahmā- the progenitor of all the worlds | Then the Lord divided the egg into two parts, with which he constructed heaven and earth | He then created the ten Prajāpatis or mind-born sons who completed the work of creation | Creator of the material universe, who is the presiding deity of the quality of passion

Brahmā an also be derived as √bṛh + aham ⇒ the supreme consciousness is the same as the consciousness within us, or aham.

the first living creature | the living entity | the mind | the Supersoul | the impersonal aspect

Vedas are the mother, and Brahmā is the grandfather, the forefather- because he was the first to be instructed in Vedic knowledge.

Let us briefly consider the notion of planes- of existence and of being.

Indic thought has detailed this well, and included subspaces through prefixes like ahi- or pāra-. But 3 specific and not mutually exclusive planes are of importance to us here: plane of the mind | plane of material reality | plane of local life and being. Indic consciousness understands them as:

आध्यात्मिक | ādhyātmika

relating to supreme mind | to the self | authorisation or initiation of one’s own self √ad - to eat, to consume adhi- over and above, ahead of adhi + ātma = adhyātma ādhyātmika - pertaining to adhyātma, ie, things of mind and intent

भौतिक | bhautika

of the material realm | relating to living things | elemental √bhū > bhūḥ > bhūta > bhautika bhuḥ - the earth or floor bhūta - being, existing, reality bhautika - pertaining to bhūta, ie, materially true and existing things

लौकिक | laukika

wholly terrestrial or worldly | ordinary, common, temporal lok - space, tract of region √lok > loka > laukya > laukika laukya - of the material and mundane world | general and commonplace laukika - pertaining to laukya, ie, local and commonplace things.

We can now point to a profound synthesis appearing in our ontology: when we say `बृहत्`, we refer to an expansive, supreme and resolute Mind/Will/Vision Matrix, ie, to the `अधिकृत आत्म`, or adhyātma.

A single root, or dhātu, or bīja, √bṛh, blooms across the entire plane of adhyātma. It swells bṛhat and generates brahman, the supreme and ultimate consciousness.

Guṇa and vṛddhi frm √bṛh yield us an entirely new way to parse and understand reality- as we will soon see. Following this full bloom shows us the core place for mind and consciousness in the Indian operating system: √bṛh is the seed of consciousness in our ontology

dhātu loka saṃsṛṣṭi

भू,भव् | bhū, bhav

भृ | bhṛ

to pervade, fill with | to bear, support, uphold | to maintain, foster, cherish, protect, take care of, nourish | to bear, have, possess | to wear

universal hindu popular culture

culture creatives
dhatu - bṛh | बृह
brahman

epistemology

how
adhyatmika
consciousness
knowing/thinking
sat
pashyanti
jñāna
policy
bhu/bhav | भू/भव
bhumi

ontology

what
bhautika
civilisation
being
cit/bhāva
madhyamika
leadership
bhṛ | भृ
bhārata

teleology

what purpose
laukika
india
doing
ananda/kriyā
vaikhari

if we can link dhatus- great
how to make tight - clarity

precise and concise definitions- the pure concept

if 3 verticals - what way to describe in english

some big questions upfront - telos

planetary level sharp questions

is leadership means towards end, or end itself

what possible business models

break even needs what-

design thinkers for culture- we produce things - end to end

Operating System Redux

On this Page: