Sunday, March 31, 2013

The Moksha Probability Cycle

[work in progress]
Plan A: Moksha this time
The chance of that happening is finite but very slim, so we have to retry.

Plan B: Rebirth in dharmic faith and re-try plan A
Given the current population ratios, and assuming that we are born into a family that actually practices dharma rather that just provide lip-service, this is no more than 20%. In other words, if we don't try to attain Moksha this time, there's at best a 20% of even getting another chance to try in the next birth. It may be possible that if we really, really tried to follow dharma to the extent possible, this may work in our favor and increase the odds of dharmic rebirth in our favor. Conversely, if we devote life to adharma, the chance of being born human itself may decrease. There's a 80% that we move to iteration #3, and see if we get lucky.  After N rebirths, assuming that dharmic faiths are miraculously still around in this Kaliyuga and form 20% of humanity, the chance that we are born in a dharmic faith = probability of at least one success in N births = 1 - probability of no success in N births = 0.8^N. For example, the probability of being reborn dharmic in our next seven lives is no more than 79%. However, we can increase this probability by adopting the dharmic way of life in every birth, regardless of where we are born. This leads to plan C.

Plan C: Reject exclusivity and follow dharma regardless of birth
This requires that pluralism, righteousness, and dharma be respected and prevail for ages to come, so that the dharmic way of life is a popular option. This is the only way we can reduce our dependency on luck. Better start working towards that right now, and improve our chances in the Moksha probability cycle!

Monday, March 18, 2013

The Merchant of Surat

I briefly met a merchant from Surat who was visiting New Jersey this weekend. It was quite a chance meeting. I did not find anything remarkable about his appearance - aside from his thoroughly Indian-Hindu visage and that Gujarati courteousness that disarms you immediately. He personally cooked food for a bunch of Indian start-up techies who were there to meet him the previous day.  I later learned this:

He was born in poverty, and studied in a Swaminarayan-trust run school, by availing of a 50% discount in fees that you could get by writing "Jai Swaminarayan" a million times over. With his limited education, he used to walk from school to school selling ball-point pens. He later branched off into trading a bunch of other things. At some point, during a visit to Antwerp, he figured out an ingenious way to cut small diamonds in Surat and essentially take over this European area of expertise to dominate their market. The rest is history. Today he's given employment to half-a-million Indians who swear by him. He wakes up early every morning and meditates, the Hindu way. He is aghast at the sight of smart and well-educated Indians - who are far more learned than he ever was, flock sheep-like, to dead-end white-collar jobs, accepting salaries and wages from corporations to turn the proverbial nut and bolt from 9-5, instead of being entrepreneurs who create more jobs, the Indian way.  As he moves into semi-retirement, he plans to open up a thousand schools in India that will run on original Indian moral values.

This is how India flourishes. India remains, as always, the land of opportunity, if we manage to throw away those colonial western shackles that enslave our minds, and rediscover Dharmic India.

Saturday, March 9, 2013

Does disagreeing with Narendra Modi make you a communist?

(scroll down for new update on November 21, 2013)

NO- as Malini Parthasarathy, formerly (update: now editor) of the renowned communist newspaper, The Hindu, tweeted today, but wait ...

On the other hand, given that there are very few Indian communists in this universe who agree with Narendra Modi (NaMo), the following implication holds true.


Prob (disagree with Modi | person is commie ) > Prob (any person disagrees with Modi)
⇒ Prob (person is a commie | disagree with Modi ) > Prob (person is commie ).

In simple language, the theorem states:
Since a person is more likely to hate Modi if it known that he/she is a commie, this in turn implies that the probability that any random Indian is a commie increases if it is additionally known that he/she disagrees with Modi.

In fact, if given additional information that the person also worked for a reputed communist newspaper, this probability goes up even more.  On the other hand, if you try to flip this around to say "You are more likely to be a Hindutva-vaadi  if you agree with Modi", this theorem won't support you much. There are a huge number of Hindutva-vaadis who do not agree, and who agree with NaMo, since support for NaMo is issue-based and cuts across sectarian barriers.

Update November 21, 2013:
After the Tehelka and AAP fiascos in the last 24 hours, we now have a

Corollary to main result

Prob (pSecular | person is big fraud) > Prob (person is pSecular)  

⇒ Prob (person is big fraud | pSecular ) > Prob (person is a big fraud)

in other words, the corollary states:
Given that we are observing with increasing frequency that the biggest frauds of Indian origin being exposed are pSecular cheerleaders, this in turn implies that the probability that a random person of Indian-origin you meet is a big fraud increases if it is additionally known that he/she is a pSecular.  

Hence the phrase "pseudo-secular fraud" is kinda becoming redundant, since being one increases the probability of being the other.

This is not opinion, but a mathematically provable, data-driven result that serves as a warning for gullible Indians.
Here's a short proof from the Endeavor blog: