\m/ Hare Krishna \m/.. and still a Naturalist!

Note: This is just a part of the experience I had, which I tried to put it as concisely as possible. Also, I haven't stopped reading scriptures after these incidents. In fact, they helped me to develop an eye on what's good interpretation of a scripture, and what's not.

I've been lot into reading from my childhood as far as I can remember. I used to read everything whatever I can understand from - books, newspapers, pamphlets, even the samosa and pakora wrappings (they used to be wrapped in old school textbook pages back then). This reading interest made me to wonder what's in the scriptures (of all religions I heard about). I never had a good source for Hindu scriptures, but I managed to read whatever I could find in my home and at relatives' and family-friends'. I even did one Bible study course from some Christian Evangelical Institute based in New Delhi to know what's in the Bible. Well, it proved to be futile as the course was too focused on appreciating Jesus as personal savior rather than discussing the scripture's content.

In the course of my inquisitiveness in religious scriptures, I used to go to Ramakrishna Math at Rajahmundry. They had lots (believe me, lots) of books, predominantly Sanskrit, English and Telugu versions of Hindu scriptures and some books on comparative religion. I never really realized earlier that there's such a huge amount of literature in Hinduism. I found the translations to be pretty straightforward and read some (minor puranas, not the huge ones like Mahabharata). The Math had some programs (reading programs, social programs) specifically aimed at teens and young people. They used to talk about meditation, importance of acquiring knowledge, etc., I was a teenager back then, and I didn't really find those to be intrusive or abhorring me to stop thinking or indoctrinating me to take their preaching for granted. May be since it was a youth program, they didn't do it - I'm not sure. I actually remember them advising to develop a scientific outlook and help the society with our knowledge. I'm giving them a benefit of doubt due to the following experience I had later in my life.

All went well and I landed in NIT Warangal after a few years. In my freshman year, a talk was conducted by VOICE (it was called BACE back then), a youth spiritual wing of ISKCON. The reason most of us attended it was that the speaker was an IIT alumnus (We NITians were always envious of IITians, you know). He was not a sanyasin, and was working in Motorola (We electronics folks actually cheered when he mentioned he's from the same background). The talk was mainly about nature of God, what Science can/cannot understand and God filling up the gaps of science. He showed us slides of religious quotes by scientists like Einstein, superposed on pictures of galaxies and stars. Finally, he ended up mentioning that it's Krishna that's the Godhead or whatever the hell it is, and He's the way to salvation. It reminded me of that course I took which used to rant and rant until I purged my intestines that Jesus is the only way to salvation. Itch towards comparative religion, eh? Well, I felt a twitch in my stomach here too

In the Q&A session that followed, I asked him why we should brand this 'God' with a name called Krishna, when we can say God is an abstract sense of some entity that's guiding the universe. He didn't answer my question, but simply said that I should start coming to VOICE sessions as I'm inquisitive and I would eventually figure out the answer myself. I was like 'what the hell', and everyone looked at me as if they are wondering why I ask questions all the time. I even heard later that some actually placed a bet if I would ask a question or not :-)

Now, there are certain ways in which VOICE operates as I observed :

• They don't publicly preach in the way other religious missionaries do. You actually have to make time and go to their sessions
• They neither publicly invite people to all sessions, nor announce their schedule. They notice those who ask questions or who seem interested and send their student members to their rooms and give books and info on upcoming sessions
• The food they serve in the VOICE hostels is ultra-hyper-super-delicious (Uncle Mess is no match)
• They don't give anything for free, which is a really good practice. They charge, however nominal it might be, for the food (10 bucks), or books (10 for small ones, 20 for big ones), or merchandize (10 typically)
• They have weekly sessions, typically on Saturdays, by a sanyasin who tours these premier colleges to give talks.
• When they don't know the answer to a question, they reply saying, "You start chanting, you'll figure out the answer yourself" and offer the tulasi-bead mala for 10 bucks

Naturally, I got a knock-knock on my door one Saturday morning (when I was still in bed), and one soft-spoken fellow (I think he's a senior year guy) came in and gave me 2 books to read and an invitation to the evening session. He was very persuasive, those were the days of my poverty and so I borrowed money from my roommate and paid for them. He greeted 'Hare Krishna' and left. I read them and found them lame. No offense, but one was on science and it was pretty twisted. Believe me, I had a good 'eye' to read scientific material back then as I've been busting pseudoscience in my own way since school days. As it follows, I didn't bother to attend the session.

In my senior year, I got a knock-knock again, and this time it was a semaphore year fellow. He tried to give me 2 books (one of which I've already read) and the invitation. He tried to be persuasive, but you know, I was the senior and I didn't buy the books and even gave him a review of the one I read. His face had gone pale, and I accepted the invitation for dinner. Well, I had actually started some theology study a few days before, and was interested to listen to the discourse.

I came to know that a couple of my classmates were also attending the session, and I joined them. The VOICE hostel in Warangal was outside the campus, unlike some IITs where they typically have a block inside the campus. They combined 2 four-room rented portions of a house and were using it for some 10-15 students as hostel, which was pretty decent (way better than our hostel). In the portion where the session is held, there was a verandah, followed by a big room with floor mattresses, a cushion for the speaker, a book-stand in front of it, and a large beautiful idol of Krishna to a corner painted in white, decorated with peacock feathers, a wig, clothes, with some fruits, milk and cooked food offered as prasad at its feet. The speaker, a young-looking sanyasin (they look much younger than they actually are, presumably due to their dietary practices, life-style, thin-frame and also partly due to the head-shaving), who was another IIT alumnus, has come already and they started Harekrishna bhajan swaying their hands in air, with one fellow giving rhythm on a dolak and another giving taal. 

The bhajan was followed by dinner, and then began the discourse in which the speaker looked up 1 verse from the Gita and gave a 20 minute speech on it. He was saying all-obvious stuff like we cannot understand the world with our senses (of course we can't, that's why telescopes, microscopes, spectroscopes and other stuff are invented), we need to control our senses (yes, or else we might end up as rapists, murderers or criminals), etc., He also mentioned how our ancestors (the Aryan ancestors) lived in great times and we are in an age of sin and so need to seek Krishna for salvation.

Well, it was never my intention to attack him, as it was pointless and uncalled for, so I politely asked him a few questions when he was alone after the session was finished and everyone left. I was interested to know what status ISKCON gives to Adi Sankaracharya and Advaitha (I was born in a Shaivaite Brahmin family, so I was interested). I also asked him whether we (I used a generic 'we') need to rely on archeological evidence and data to map history, whether ISKCON uses it to analyze Hindu scriptures and if Vedas were there before Aryan invasion, and some other related questions. He was pointing to me that we need to trust our scriptures no matter what academia says, as scientific knowledge changes and the scriptures don't change. I didn't want to debate him in any way possible, so I came out

I attended some later sessions also, primarily for the food (I'm shameless, you know). He never really went beyond 1 verse of Gita and always picked out the lamest ones. I regularly asked him dharmic queries from puranas (no mocking, I really like mythologies) and ISKCON's positions on various issues. One thing I liked in him was that he was very open and honest while answering and I could see that he was being sincere in his answers and opinions, however irrational they might be. Once, I asked him how he can simply reject evidence without any reason and at the same time rely on an out-dated, unedited set of books for no reason; He simply smiled saying I would know once I start chanting Hare Krishna and realize the truth for myself. Another time, he asked me to consider joining ISKCON as I'm inquisitive, analytical and would really be a good teacher; I smiled and thanked him for the offer, and said I have duties of looking after parents, etc., (I'm not bragging, I really said it)

I can say that he kinda liked me for my honesty in inquiry, politeness in refuting his arguments from authority, and not trashing away scriptural answers but actually pointing out the flaws in them and asking open-ended questions. I never really told him that I'm more of a critical thinker and that I would prefer evidence and uncertainty to faith towards scriptures

Summarizing my visits, what I understood was that in ISKCON, there is a lot of preaching compared to the actual reading of scripture, and that it is an evangelical organization to its core. They target premier colleges and try to indoctrinate the students asking them not to accept Science as it's limited (as if a set of books written 4500 yrs back is infinite and absolute), stop thinking Rationally (because then people start asking questions like me), accept their preaching at face-value (or ask only those questions that actually add to the indoctrination). Their USPs are no rituals (compare offering food at feet of an idol, chanting Hare Krishna and a mahanivedana ritual), no complicated sanskrit verses to recite, easy-to-follow religious lifestyle and IIT-branded preachers for students. At one stage (very initial, not even deeper stages), they suggest people to become monks and join their crusade, and it helps a lot if they have premier college degrees and have quit a 6-digit salary job to join the organization

However, it is always saddening to see elite-educated people leaving rationality behind, training themselves to getting indoctrinated, and joining these kind of organizations thinking they could seek truth in these practices

P.S: Be a follower of my blog if u like it.. the button is to the right of this page..

Value added Tradition

Note: I have hyperlinked some words for a better understanding of the content

Some months ago, I read a news article stating an addition of a zodiac sign and a shift of the existing zodiac sign periods by one month from 2011. Simply put, this change is due to a relative wobble of earth's axis in the earth-moon system. So all the sidereal astrological systems would be affected due to this wobble. Vedic astrology, which your next-door astrologer practises, is a sidereal system and so your zodiac sign would also change due to this wobble

This was a regular news item for me, but I saw it was some sort of question of existence for some (actually, many) people around me. One fellow was discussing how his zodiac sign would change and was frustrated about how one could become a Virgo all of sudden while he/she was a Gemini till the day before. I couldn't stop my enthusiasm to know how the fellow thinks and asked him what difference could a change of zodiac sign do to in his life. He replied that a change in zodiac sign would change his horoscope and so the predictions of his qualities, life and marriage would change. And his entire life was changed just because earth-moon system had a wobble. He said that it was unfair as it affects people's career, marriage and lifestyle.

So I told him that he should switch his belief system to palmistry which won't be affected due to this wobble, instead of astrology which might change anytime when some cosmological event happens. His answer was that he doesn't believe in palmistry. Then I asked him why he would believe astrology in that case. He replied saying he has absolute faith in it as it's part of Indian tradition and it's by his tradition that how he is defined and made.

Yes, he's correct. Every person is built out of his own tradition. I'm what I am due to the tradition in which I was brought up. We get many things from tradition. Our language, dressing style, food habits, social norms, customs, ethics (to some extent), way of looking at human relationships (to some extent) and many more come from tradition. It is a template in which we get raised and it is marked by a long chain of history and civilization that flourished and paved way for our existence. Some aspects of tradition are purely sociological, whereas some are religious. Throughout our life, we really cannot change the way how some aspects of tradition influenced us in our childhood.

And as he said, astrology is part of the contemporary Hindu tradition. And going back in history, Ashwamedha was part of the Hindu tradition at least during the Mauryan dynasty (185 BC). But the exact ritual is not a part of contemporary Hindu tradition. Most of us don't know the exact ritual of Ashwamedha as mentioned in the Yajurveda. So, why is it not part of contemporary Hindu tradition anymore?

Ok, let's suppose Indian government now starts performing Ashwamedha in the truly Vedic way for supremacy in the world and to make India the No.1 economy in the world and to eradicate poverty in the country. Would anyone welcome it with their share of support? Of course no one would. This is because people are enlightened enough in animal welfare and women rights to oppose this and draw a line. But again, Ashwamedha is one of the most powerful and pleasing sacrifices to the Gods as mentioned in the Vedas and every other Emperor in Hindu mythological epics performed this ritual and it worked well for them in bringing success and supremacy.

So, is it fine to discard insensible and irrational aspects of tradition as times change? Or we would be betraying the holy texts of canon composed by people in 2nd century BC if we leave some of them as nonsense and not applicable? If the ritual mentioned in Yajurveda was a divine revelation to the Aryans, then that should be the exact and only way to perform it to please the Gods. Who are the 21st century people to discard or change it just for a whim of animal welfare and women rights?

Now coming to astrology, it's the alleged "science" (people often forget it's astronomy which is science) that explains the effect of a handful of stars and planets on the the entire 7 billion world population, to the level of individual human behavior, luck, marriage, career, health, children, success, earning, expenditure.. and so on.. Physicists (who don't know anything the Aryans knew 3500 years back) have discovered some fundamental interaction forces till date in the entire universe. None of those explain the effect claimed by astrology. Even though some physicists claim these are the only possible forces present in universe, if there is any other force present in this universe (the astro'logical' force), it should hold good to a statistical study.

I'm giving reference to one study conducted in India here. It was a double-blind trial to verify the statistical success of astrological predictions. The results showed that the astrological predictions were as accurate as that of a coin toss, around 50%, whereas statistically meaningful predictions would be 70% or higher. If one would do the same experiment to check electromagnetic force between a pair of charge carriers, the success of predictions would safely be above 99.99% (It would be 100% if any applicable quantum mechanics is included)

So, next time, if you are about to consult an astrologer for a match-compatibility, hold on and toss a fair coin. Look up as yes for heads, no for tails, check the result and proceed accordingly.

Even if you consult the astro-guy, the probability of a successful prediction from him would be the same !!

P.S: Be a follower of my blog if u like it.. the button is to the right of this page..

The Gods that used to be crazy

Another one month, and I'm back with a new one.. Read on..

We used to wonder at many things in our childhood. Many of us used to wonder what happens in the skies every night, why the moon changes its size every night, where the stars would go in the day, how some objects show magnetism and why the sea roars with waves. We also used to wonder why medicines are bitter, why doctors are always fond of syringe and needle and why parents, unlike us, don't go to school and get beaten by teachers. We reason out at some, and experience some, providing answers to our questions and thus stopping the intrigue within us. Even then, there are still many wonders lying out there for us to ponder and rejoice.

During the summer vacation after my fifth standard, I got this book "Trojan war" from my senior batch. This book was the supplementary reader for the sixth standard english. Not to mention my fascination towards mythologies, I started reading it right away and re-read it some 6-7 times during my vacation. I loved that book. It's an epic. The men were audacious, women were blonde, hot and sexy, the Gods were crazy, the Goddesses were jealous of one another and bribed men with chicks. I used to get dreams where I would watch Ulysses coming out from the trojan horse, Achilles killing Hector and Paris running away with Helen. 

But one thing that fascinated me the most was their pantheon. Zeus, Neptune, Aphrodite, Poseidon, Apollo.. the list has no end. I would get introduced to a new God in every chapter. He would screw up the war by favoring one side till the men on the other side offer princesses and maidens (I dunno what's the fetish of virgins in every faith) as slaves to him. He accepts them and keeps quiet. Warriors like Achilles would also ask for maidens as they are children of the Gods. And when they don't get the maiden slaves they withdraw from the war. I think this craziness of mortals and immortals brings good element of surprise to Trojan war and makes it an epic mythology.

Now coming to the real reality, I used to think that the ancient Greeks were mad praying to those Gods. I would rather not welcome Zeus, Neptune and Venus into my life (even though Venus would offer women like Helen to my disposal) as I had my own set of Gods whom I felt were more sensible and realistic. Yes, I thought my pantheon was "realistic" and "divine" and I still dunno the reason for it. Even though I used to compare some of the Greek pantheon to the RigVedic pantheon, I felt the latter was more divine and realistic. I think the reason for not questioning why I thought so might be the fact that I'd been following this pantheon since my childhood without asking any questions.

Later in my schooling days, I visited some churches as I was interested to know how a church would look like from the inside and how a mass would be performed. I loved cathedrals with all the paintings, sculptures and stuff. I used to stare at the ceiling, walls, hangings, candles and decoration in the church when everyone else was busy praying deeply and some crying in ecstasy. Sometimes, the bishop would bless people who were sick and some would weep bitterly taking a cross into their hands.

All that time, I never understood what made them so ecstatic when english verses (I used to think it was some poetry written by Jesus Christ) are read loud from a neatly bound big book. I never understood how the sick could believe that a simple english verse from the big book and water smeared in the shape of cross on their forehead would heal them. But one thing, I never thought these people are crazy doing all this stuff. I think my reason behind this was that since many people follow this faith, it must have some sort of divinity or something.

And on the other hand, I never wondered why I would recite the same "suklam bharadharam", "saraswathi namastubhyam" everyday even though they're simple verses. Well, the only difference is that they're written in sanskrit. I also never wondered why people would wear talismans and walk around a tree 108 times just because it's in the premises of a temple. The reason for this might be the fact that I'd been following this faith since childhood without asking any questions

Now coming to ancient Greece again, why should one think the Greeks were mad? Or their entire pantheon was silly and stupid? Is it just because Zeus and his entire lot are jobless now? Zeus and co., is no ordinary lot. Some of them are notorious (read as miraculous) enough to stop winds when Agamemnon's army was sailing. Their mercy and grace favored Greeks and made them win the war. Their wrath and curses apparently caused tornadoes, hurricanes and famines all over Greece and Rome. One would be very cautious not demean any one of them in those days. Such was their might, will and power. It's irrational and senseless to claim they don't have divinity just because there's no cultural, traditional, social and political significance to any of them in the contemporary world

Alright, now one might agree that the Greek pantheon is great, divine, realistic and can be worshiped. Now what about Amun-Ra and co., from ancient Egypt? What about Thor, Balder and co., from Germany? Why should Greeks have all the fun? Even though Hitler was from Germany and Germany had Thor as God in the past, is it fair that the entire German pantheon shouldn't be respected? Does unemployment and failure in wars and politics make these Gods worthless of even acknowledging their existence?

So what can we say about this? One thing is for sure. All these were the Gods that used to be crazy. And even today, the God(s) are crazy, but their name(s) and the civilizations that worship these God(s) are different from those in the past. And as the comparative theologians always say, all the religions are qualitatively one and the same, and all the God(s) are also one and the same. Hence following the assertion, the contemporary faiths are also crazy (BTW I really hate to deduce things out of theological assertions)

If this is the case, then why are we so keen, sensitive, religious and devoted about the God(s) that are in our pantheon? I would say it's just the authoritative indoctrination and self-assertion over a period of time that makes us have blind faith in many things around us, including religious faith. It's this very lack of indoctrination and assertion that makes a christian not to have faith in hindu Gods and it's the same thing that never made me realize the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for sins of the entire humankind starting from homo antecessors to those who are gonna live till the next doomsday event.

And ironically for most of us, it's sheer accidence that we get born into a family of a particular faith that chooses the doctrine with which we get brainwashed all through our life. We never get a real choice in deciding this for ourselves.

And most of us remain in that sightless vision (as I call it) for the rest of our lives rejecting anthropology, history, reason, logic, and sometimes even common sense !!

P.S: Be a follower of my blog if u like it.. the button is to the right of this page..

The Wealthy Peasants

Another 1 month and I'm back with another post. Read on..

Note: To avoid comments like "An argument wins over the situation but loses the person", I shall be using the word 'argument' in this post as the logical points of view two persons were trying to establish in course of a friendly impersonal discussion, after which there's no screw-up of the relationship between them.

Lately, I'm not able to restrain myself from refuting people's arguments whenever I find them nonsense. Earlier, I would never bother how everyone else is thinking as far as it doesn't affect me directly. I dunno if I'm getting philanthropic or over-assertive gradually, but I'm not able to let go if people have an opinion that doesn't make any sense and I'm trying to give them counter-arguments from various points of view refuting the rationale on their opinion. This is definitely not the typical white-man's burden and I don't really have any metaphysical motivation for doing this.

When I started these arguments, I observed that people were not able to get convinced by some points of view and they get persuaded with some points of view. Some get convinced by analogies, some rebuke analogies as fallacies in the strictest definition of the argument; Some get convinced by scientific argument and some completely discard scientific argument; Some need further references to get convinced and some don't even try to look up other references. I would be discussing the reasons I observed why people don't get convinced for various arguments

# Bad Analogy
I dunno what the deal with people and analogies is. Most of us don't agree to anything unless we find some analogy for the argument. These people get convinced only by analogies. They just want a familiar story with a conclusion logically agreeable to the argument. They cannot comprehend the logic behind the argument, and they would rather get convinced by a story with hypothetical scenario. This is the case with most of us. One must use creativity extensively to discuss with these people

May be that's the reason why mythological epics are so popular compared to philosophical works. I would say analogies help us understand the basic argument, but we shouldn't confine ourselves to learning from analogies. Analogies are overwhelmingly persuasive, but it's really difficult to derive a proper analogy for many arguments.

# The Scientific Argument
I think scientific argument is the most convincing argument for any disagreement. Philosophical arguments rely more on the way the argument is articulated whereas scientific argument is persuading without the need of any smart articulation. In spite of this, I observed many people not getting convinced by the scientific argument. I might classify the reasons behind this as follows

1. Unable to apply general science: I think, to understand most of the scientific arguments, one needs to have a basic knowledge of how things work. A higher-secondary school level knowledge of physics, chemistry and biology would do the job. Even though many of us have studied these subjects and got good grades, we have a tendency to forget them when we drift to a different field of profession. 

I have seen many engineering grads who believe in "Cosmic vibrations (nice word) emitted from gems affecting (non-existent) human aura" and "Undetectable (non-existent) forces exerted by distant planets effecting human psychology on earth" in spite of their IIT-JEE standard knowledge on heat transfer and fundamental forces in the universe. Also, many believe that "1 molecule remedy diluted in 10³⁰ moles of water homeopathic remedies" work in spite of good knowledge in chemistry. Medical stigmas on aids patients in general public in spite of basic knowledge in biology is another example

The problem here is that, we try to separate everything as distinct entities and we don't apply our general science knowledge in our beliefs/opinions. When we practise this everyday, we gradually tend to refute any scientific argument, however obvious it might be.

2. Quasi-scientific arguments: In addition to the conclusive factual scientific arguments, we also have an equal (in fact, more) number of arguments that "sound scientific" but necessarily are not so. For eg., I can say the reason why we have seasons is due to the elliptical orbit of earth, and summer comes when earth is closest to sun and winter comes when it's farthest. This argument is considerably persuasive, but most of us (ironically, not everyone) know that that's not the reason why we have seasons. "Water memory" claimed by homeopathic doctors is another example of a quasi-scientific argument.

Generally, people get confused by these contradicting scientific arguments and fail to understand which one's evident and which one's not. This is also one reason why people stop getting convinced by scientific arguments thinking they are not reliable.

# The Wiki Taboo
Whenever I give external references to people rather than hear the argument from me, most of them go through those and verify their argument. But there are some who think it's totally "uncool". They would refute encyclopedias and stick to their non-evident and non-referable argument. They say they would google it themselves if they ever want to verify. I would say if they ever googled it, they won't be sticking to the same irrational argument they have now. 

So, they never googled/wikied it, and when I  give an external reference, they say "I'll google it when I wanna verify". Hence the bottom line is that they never want to verify.

It makes me conclude this as a typical "resistance to change" behavior and unable to shift from their comfort-zone.

# I simply don't care
Saying "I simply don't care to know what's the fact" is really a powerful defense to stop the argument from further proceeding. I would say we really don't have a choice to care or not about the fact. It's a fact, and we have to know it.

If we don't care about knowing that earth is round, we might make a fool out of ourselves by joining 'Flat earth society'; If we don't care about  knowing that gems and stones don't affect human behavior and luck, we might be spending hard-earned money on getting the gems and wearing 2 rings on each finger. If we don't care about knowing homeopathic remedies are not medicines but just plain water/alcohol, we might end up using them for long periods of time and getting chronic for our ailments.

So "I simply don't care" means "I don't wanna verify and I don't mind getting screwed up for my belief"

Finally, concluding the post, I think this constant refutation of logic and evidence to change our opinion/belief would make us, as Noam Chomsky calls it, "a bunch of shattered wealthy peasants". There are many things which we inherently believe without reasoning to ourselves why we do it or just because of authoritative indoctrination. We tend to assert those beliefs/opinions to ourselves by false conclusions from what we observe without questioning it and without thinking if an alternate evident, logical argument exists for it. After a point, we stop changing our opinions, however irrational they might sound, as we don't like to realize that we spent the rest of our life believing in nonsense.

I hope most of us won't become these "Wealthy Peasants" over a period of time!!

P.S: Be a follower of my blog if u like it.. the button is to the right of this page..

The Palmist effect

OMG it's been two months since I posted on my blog. In fact I couldn't select a topic to write. It's like there are so many items on the menu and I'm pondering over each dish forgetting that at EOD, eating is all about pacifying hunger. So I was enlightened in a restaurant 2 days ago and here I am, back with some "stuff" to post.

The first time I read a book on palmistry was when I finished my intermediate and was writing these engg entrance exams, one after the other. I happened to find one "Palmistry for beginners" book at my aunt's house and I went through it, without contributing much memory to it. Actually, I was trying to read my hand based on the book and I couldn't find many lines on my hand to get a proper reading (For eg., my destiny line wasn't properly developed back then). Well, I don't remember much about the self-reading I did that time.

In my engg final year, I happened to read that book again during one of my Weekend+Monday visits to hyd. This time, I went through the book pretty seriously and I even prepared a notes on the important points and some illustrations (I still wonder what made me do that). After this somewhat serious reading, I took a self-reading and astonishingly found some points, which I thought were uncommon in people, matching close to my personality. And when I returned to college, I started reading others' hands just to check the correctness of palmistry. I've been with this habit of accepting many things only after a satisfactory first-hand verification since my schooling days.

My experience in reading others' palms in college was exciting, memorable and amazing. I was rather surprised at the level of enthusiasm people show to get a reading. And they found the readings strikingly close to their personality (I call these "hits") and this encouraged me to read other books like Cheiro palmistry to get a better understanding on the subject. I've been developing palmistry more like a hobby since then and I still give readings if someone asks.

Coming to the topic, I observed some points while I was reading others' hands. One is that people try to think about even the most general of predictions as specifically tailor-made to themselves. For eg., If I tell someone "You have good intuitive power", they talk about it positively and lo, I have a "hit". In fact, I told many people that they have good intuitive power, which is an attribute found in everyone. Everyone has intuitive power, and the "goodness" of this intuitive power is entirely subjective. Everyone thinks they have "good intuitive power"  and that they have a hunch in discovering hunches. That's the reason why we have lot of gossiping and conspiracies on every other damn thing around us. 

Other good examples for this general-but-misleading lines are "You are a cautious person" (Everyone is cautious), "You are independent" (Everyone is a mixture of dependent and independent nature), "Your family has effect on you in choosing your career" (90% of people in India have this situation). All these lines become "hits" for the palmist for obvious reasons.

Another thing is that people accept some things which they really don't know if they have those or not. For eg., If I say something like "You have difficulty in choosing friends"; Even though the other person is not sure whether he has that difficulty in choosing friends, he doesn't really find it difficult to recall some goddamn incident in his life where a friend pissed him off real bad. And now, since he recalled it successfully, he nods and the palmist has another "hit". To be honest, we really don't know about ourselves deep within and we would become saints or god-men if we really knew properly about ourselves.  So, after a considerable number of general-prediction "hits" from the palmist, the other person starts doing this ignorant "hit-giving" business.

Well, the lines given by the palmist like "You have a good intuitive power", "You have difficulty in choosing friends", etc., are not supposed to manipulate the person taking the reading. In fact, some lines on the palm actually refer to those qualities. These references are so obviously general but on the contrary, the other person deludes himself thinking they are specific to him. When I look at my hand now and try to decode the lines, I see myself laughing at the generality of the reading.

All this stuff I discussed now is only from my observations while giving readings. I validate these observations whenever I read a hand and every time they fall right in place. I find this "Palmist effect" so amazing that I sometimes wonder why people even bother to get a reading of their hands just to delude themselves.

It's really a weird world we live in !!


P.S: Be a follower of my blog if u like it.. the button is to the right of this page..