Sanskrit Prayer


Posted in Sanskrit, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

What Is Poetry!

 

Posted in Literature | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Book Review – Making Sense: Conversations on Consciousness, Morality and the Future of Humanity

 

Making Sense: Conversations on Consciousness, Morality and the Future of HumanityMaking Sense: Conversations on Consciousness, Morality and the Future of Humanity by Sam Harris
5 of 5 stars

This book is the concise summary of Sam Harris’s podcast conversations with number of influential thinkers of our time. The common theme in Sam Harris’s works is to debunk the notion that there is anything like Free Will and he says in the preface again of this book that most of the evil in our world—all the needless misery we manufacture for one another—is the product, not of what bad people do, but of what good people do once in the grip of bad ideas.

The first conversation is with David Chalmers who is the resident philosopher at New York University and at the Australian National University, Chalmers is also a co-director of the Centre for Mind, Brain, and Consciousness at NYU. The dialog centred around the hard problem of consciousness and future of AI. David makes very interesting observations in the course of this discourse. At one point he observed that if we built a robot that could do all the things we can, it seems that at no point in refining its mechanisms would we have reason to believe that it was conscious, even if it passed the Turing Test. It seems increasingly likely that we will build machines that will seem conscious, and the effect could be so convincing that we might lose sight of the hard problem. In discussing the problem of other minds, he wondered how do you know that anybody apart from yourself is conscious? Descartes said, “Well, I’m certain of one thing: I’m conscious. I think, therefore I am.” That only gets you one data point. It gets me the me being conscious—and only being conscious right now, because who knows if I was ever conscious in the past? Anything beyond right now has to be an inference or an extrapolation. A similar pertinent point was made by him on evolution that the very fact that you can make sense of it immediately raises questions like “Why aren’t we zombies?” Evolution could have produced zombies; instead, it produced conscious beings. Why didn’t evolution produce zombies? If there were some function we could point to and say, “That’s what you need consciousness for; you couldn’t do that without consciousness,” then we might have a function for consciousness. But right now, for anything we actually do—perception, learning, memory, language, and so on—it sure looks as if a whole lot of it could be done unconsciously. The whole problem of what consciousness is doing is thrown into harsh relief by the zombie thought experiment. Another interesting idea, he said is that consciousness may be present at a fundamental level in physics. This corresponds to the traditional philosophical view called panpsychism—the view that basically everything has a mind where mind equals consciousness. Thus, every system is conscious, including fundamental physical systems like atoms or quarks or photons.

Next conversation is with David Deutsch who is a visiting professor of physics at the Center for Quantum Computation at the Clarendon Laboratory of Oxford University, where he works on the quantum theory of computation, and constructor theory. The conversation further explore the nature of knowledge and the implications of its being independent of any specific, physical embodiment. David says that the way he think of knowledge is broader than the usual use of the term—and yet, paradoxically, closer to its common sense use. Knowledge is a kind of information, which is to say that it’s something that is one particular way and could have been otherwise; additionally, knowledge says something true and useful about the world. Knowledge is in a sense an abstraction, because it’s independent of its physical instantiation. One can speak words which embody some knowledge and can write them down. They can exist as movements of electrons in a computer, and so on. So knowledge isn’t dependent on any particular instantiation. But it does have the property that when it is instantiated, it tends to remain so. He mentioned about Karl Popper’s concept of knowledge as not requiring a knowing subject. It can exist in books, or in the mind, and people can have knowledge they don’t know they have. He further adds that among the rational approaches to knowledge, there’s an important difference between science and things like philosophy and mathematics. Not at the most fundamental level, but at a level which is often of great practical importance. That is, science is the kind of knowledge that can be tested by experiment or observation. He hasten to add, that doesn’t mean that the content of a scientific theory consists entirely of its testable predictions; the testable predictions of a typical scientific theory are a tiny sliver of what it tells us about the world. Karl Popper introduced this criterion, that science is testable theories and everything else is untestable. Another point he mentions is that Empiricism as the idea that knowledge comes to us through the senses is completely false: all knowledge is conjectural. It first comes from within and is intended to solve problems, not to summarize data. But this idea that experience has authority, and that only experience has authority—false though it is—was a wonderful defence against previous forms of authority, which were not only invalid but stultifying. But in the twentieth century, a horrible thing happened, which is that people started taking empiricism seriously—not just as a defence, but as being literally true—and that almost killed certain sciences. Even within physics; it greatly impeded progress in quantum theory. Science is a way of dealing with theories regardless of whether or not one believes them. One judges them according to whether or not they’re good explanations. When Harris contended that Evolution hasn’t designed us to fully understand the nature of reality, David refutes that notion and says that there is no hardware problem in understanding the nature of reality and there is the universality of computation. Information can only be processed in basically one way—with computation of the kind invented by Babbage and Turing. We already know that our computers are universal, in the sense that given the right program, they can perform any transformation of information whatsoever, including the creation of explanations and other knowledge. Now, there are only two possible limitations to that. One is the lack of computer memory—lack of information-storage capacity—and the other is the lack of speed, or the lack of time. Apart from that, our computers, and our brains, and any computers that will ever be built or can ever be built anywhere in the universe, have the same repertoire. That’s the principle of the universality of computation. He concluded that problem is more on software side i.e. for almost the whole of human existence, humans had the ability to be creative and to do everything we’re doing. They just didn’t, because their culture was wrong. He concluded that real truth is that science isn’t based on empiricism, it’s based on reason, and so is morality. So, if you adopt a rational attitude toward morality, and therefore say that morality consists of moral knowledge—and knowledge always consists of conjectures, doesn’t need a basis, only needs modes of criticism; and those modes of criticism operate by criteria that are themselves subject to modes of criticism—then you come to a transcendent moral truth. If all knowledge is conjectural and subject to improvement, then protecting the means of improving knowledge is more important than any particular piece of knowledge.

Next talk is with Anil Seth who is a professor of cognitive and computational neuroscience at the University of Sussex and founding co-director of the Sackler Centre for Consciousness Science. The aim of the Sackler Centre is to translate an understanding of the complex brain networks underpinning consciousness into new clinical approaches to psychiatric and neurological disorders. Anil said that there is a distinction between consciousness and self-consciousness. Our conscious experience of selfhood is part of our conscious experiences, but is only a subset of those experiences. And then there are arguments about whether there’s such a thing as a “phenomenal” consciousness that’s different from “access” consciousness—where “phenomenal consciousness” refers to the impression we have of a rich scene before us which might exceed whatever we have cognitive access to, and “access consciousness” refers to the way in which the contents of consciousness can be flexibly deployed for a variety of different functions. Thomas Nagel put forward in his famous essay “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?” which reads in part: Conscious experience is a widespread phenomenon. It occurs at many levels of animal life, though we cannot be sure of its presence in the simpler organisms, and it is very difficult to say in general what provides evidence of it. Anil further says that the hard problem of consciousness has been—and rightly so—one of the most influential philosophical contributions to the consciousness debate for the last twenty years or so. It encapsulates the fundamental mystery that for some physical systems there is also an inner universe. For some systems, there is the presence of conscious experience, there is something-it-is-like-to-be that system. Whereas for other systems—tables, chairs, probably all current computers—there is nothing-it-is-like-to-be that system. What the hard problem does is push that intuition a bit further, to distinguish it from a set of so-called easy problems. The hard problem is understanding how and why any solution to the easy problem—any explanation of how the brain does what it does in terms of behaviour, perception, and so on—has anything to do with conscious experiences. So, the hard problem, this central mystery of why there is experience rather than no experience, gathers within its remit everything to do with phenomenology. He contends that there is no such thing as “direct perception” of the world or of the self. The idea of a controlled hallucination, or of a fantasy that coincides with reality, is simply to say that normal perception always involves a balancing act between sensory signals coming from the world and interpretations and predictions about the causes of those sensations. world. He cited the comment from his friend the musician and playwright Baba Brinkman—whom he worked with on The Rap Guide to Consciousness—put it beautifully: “What we call reality is just when we all agree about our hallucinations.” We (implicitly) expect our experiences of the outside world to change as we move around, but we somehow expect our experience of self to be stable. But without consciousness, there’s no meaning to anything. We could argue about whether conscious experience in general, for most creatures and most species, is characterized by an oversupply of suffering compared to beauty. In which case maybe ethically, it’s not a bad thing if we have non-conscious successors.

Next conversation is on the topic of Nature of Consciousness with Thomas Metzinger whose research centres on the analytic philosophy of mind, applied ethics, and the philosophy of cognitive science. He is a senior research professor at Johannes Gutenberg University in Germany, where he was previously a professor of theoretical philosophy and director of the research group on neuroethics and neurophilosophy. He rebukes the theory of nothingness and says that to make a cosmological analogy: it’s like the idea that everything, including the laws of nature, emerged out of nothing. Now, that may be true, but I’d argue that it’s the statement of a miracle. He explains his theory called the self-model theory of subjectivity described in his book called Being No One. What it says is that you have no self, but you have a self-model active in your brain, and it’s a naturally evolved representational structure that’s transparent. “Transparent” means you cannot experience it as a representation. Right now, as you’re listening to me, you’re identifying yourself with the content of your self-model. If you can rest for a while in a nonfragmented state, in an effortless form of mindfulness, you’ll have no sense of self. And then you’ll be jolted out of it by the next mind-wandering phase. This is the usual cycle for the meditator. The biggest problem in meditation is the meditator, as everybody knows. You’re trying to coax or manipulate yourself into something that’s rewarding. And that’s effortful. Perhaps some future generation, more integrated with its machines or which has been genetically engineered, will suffer far less and spend more time in awe at the beauty of the cosmos. On the topic of religion he minces no words that says that the explicit conscious knowledge of our own mortality has to do with the evolution of religion. Religions are what I call adaptive delusional systems; they help human beings deny their mortality.

Next topic on discussion does not fit in well with the other themes of this book but still was important topic to address. Timothy Snyder is the Richard C. Levin professor of history at Yale University and a permanent fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna. The conversation primarily focuses on his book On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century, but also touch on themes he further develops in The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America. Harris asks Tim a pertinent question that why American’s at this moment are so blinkered and are being pulled by the tide of history in a very unlucky direction, toward the ruination of everything they care about. Tim says that there are three factors at play here. The first is the long-standing religious tradition of exceptionalism, the notion that Americans escaped from an evil old world into a pure new world, which is, of course, ridiculous on a whole number of fronts. The second is the obvious fact that in many ways they’re a world unto ourselves. The historians of American history rarely venture beyond American history, so you can hardly expect the American citizen to do so. And the third factor, and maybe the most relevant, is metaphysical laziness. He says Americans are not reading much and reading is a precondition of conversation, and conversation is something we very much need politically. On Racism he says that it is the suspension of the rational faculty and a perception of unfitness for intimate relations, a presumption about intelligence, an imputation of bad character—this kind of thing—vis-à-vis another person or group of people because of what one understands their racial identity to be.

Next conversation in the book is about the biology of good and evil with Robert Sapolsky who is a neuroendocrinologist and a primatologist. He is a professor of biology and neurology at Stanford University and the recipient of a MacArthur Foundation “genius” grant. He is a gifted communicator of science as well as a top-flight scientist. About his domain he says that it’s a fascinating domain—the fact that the insular cortex, which tells you if you’re eating something rotten, also mediates moral disgust in us. That a part of the brain that does temperature sensing for you is also activated when you perceive that somebody has a warm or a cold personality. That the parts of your brain involved in pain detection in a literal sense also activate when you’re feeling empathic about somebody else’s pain. As often pointed out, evolution is not an inventor, it’s a tinkerer; it makes do with what’s already there.

Next comes one of my favourite authors Daniel Kahneman who is an emeritus professor of psychology at Princeton University, and also an emeritus professor of public affairs at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. He received the Nobel Prize in economics for the work he did on decision making under uncertainty, with Amos Tversky. He first explains the concept of System 1 & System 2. He says that before starting with anything else, there are clearly two ways that ideas come to mind. If one say two plus two, then an idea comes to your mind. You haven’t asked for it, you’re completely passive, and something happens in your memory. If one asks you to multiply twenty-four by seventeen, you have to work to get that idea. So, it’s that dichotomy between the effortless and the effortful. And that is phenomenologically obvious—you start from there. How you describe it, and whether you choose to describe it in terms of systems or in other terms—that’s a theoretical choice. He says that theory is less important than the basic observation that there are two ways for ideas to come to mind. And then you have to describe it in a way that will be useful. What I mean by that is you have to describe the phenomena in a way that will help researchers have good ideas about facts and experiments to run. System 1 and System 2—it’s not dichotomy, and many people object to the terminology, but he said that he chose it quite deliberately. Next, he says that there are ways to solve societal problems. Around the end of World War Two, the social psychologist Kurt Lewin developed ideas about how you can change behaviour, and he distinguished two central ways of changing behaviour: You can apply pressure in the direction that you want people to go, or you can ask a very different question—why aren’t they going there by themselves? What is preventing them from doing what you think they should do? And then remove the obstacles. Make it easier for people. It’s perhaps the best psychological idea I know. This distinction between applying pressure, and making things easier, removing obstacles in the key here. Next, he talks about there’s another distinction he makes that is incredibly useful and troubling for those of us who want to be happy in this life: it’s the distinction between the “remembering self” and the “experiencing self.” selves. There is the self that is living your life, and it’s having all those experiences in real time. That’s the experiencing self. Then there is the self that comes to life when you ask someone what they think about their life, how happy they are, if their vacation went well—all of those retrospective questions—and this is the remembering self. So that leads to two conceptions of well-being. One is based on experience or the reality of experience, and the other is the construction that people have—that story that people construct about their life, and that they evaluate when you ask them a question. People actually want good memories. They want to be satisfied with their life. They’re not thinking of the future in terms of experiences, they’re thinking of the future in terms of anticipated memories. Well, if we could have both a happy life and good memories, that would be wonderful. But it turns out in the research on well-being that it’s not the same thing. The conditions that make you happy in your life, and the conditions that make you satisfied with your life, are different. What determines how happy you are is largely social. It’s spending a lot of time with people you love—and its actually friends more than children. But the conditions that lead people to be satisfied with their life are much more conventional. They’re about success.

Next Talk is with Nick Bostrom who is a Swedish-born philosopher with a background in theoretical physics, computational neuroscience, logic, artificial intelligence, and many other interesting topics. Officially he is a professor of philosophy at Oxford University, where he leads the Future of Humanity Institute. The talk delves in exploring Bostrom’s views on existential risk by focusing on three of his papers. The existential risk is concept of a risk either to the survival of Earth-originating intelligent life or a risk that could permanently and drastically reduce our potential for creating desirable future developments. In other words, a risk that could permanently destroy the future. The three papers on which this talk is based are 1) “The Vulnerable World Hypothesis.” 2) “Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?” And 3) “Where Are They?” (which is analysis of the Fermi problem, asking where is the rest of the intelligent life in the galaxy). The first paper tries to identify the ways in which the world could be vulnerable, the types of black ball technology that we might invent from “the urn of inventions”. The first and most obvious way the world can be vulnerable is if there is some technology that empowers individuals to cause sufficiently large amounts of destruction. The second paper deals with the simulation argument which is a probabilistic argument that purports to impose a constraint on what you can coherently believe about the future and your place in the universe. It tries to show that at least one of three propositions are true. The first is that there is a universal pattern where virtually all civilizations at our current stage of technological development go extinct before reaching technological maturity. The second alternative is that there is a very strong convergence among all technologically mature civilizations in that they all lose interest in creating what he calls “ancestor simulations.” These would be computer simulations of people—such as their historical predecessors—detailed enough that the simulated creatures would be conscious. And the third alternative is that we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. The third paper “Where is everyone?” says that if we find multicellular life (and certainly anything more complicated than that) on Mars or elsewhere in the cosmos, that will be very bad news for us, because it would suggest that we are doomed. He arrive at this by considering the implications of an idea that Robin Hanson calls “the great filter.” The background here is Fermi’s observation that we have seen no sign of any extra-terrestrial life, let alone any space-colonizing extra-terrestrial life. Yet we know that there are a lot of planets out there, including ones that look like they should be habitable; and billions of billions of them are close enough that a technologically mature civilization could have had ample time by now to reach Earth or to make its presence known. Thus, we infer that between the formation of a suitable planet and the stage of development where an extra-terrestrial civilization spreads through the universe (in ways that would be perceptible to us) there must be one or more highly improbable steps, a “great filter.” Now we can distinguish two possibilities: either this great filter, this great improbability, lies behind us in our evolutionary past, and we’ve been lucky and made it through; or this great filter lies in our future, and at some point, between where we are now and the point where we’re spreading through the galaxy and beyond, it will put a stop to us. It could also be that there is a filter both behind us and ahead of us; but if there is a filter behind us then there’s no particular reason to think there’s one ahead of us, so in that case we may have pretty good prospects of becoming a space-colonizing supercivilization.

Next conversation in the book is with David Krakauer who is president and William H. Miller professor of complex systems at the Santa Fe Institute. His research explores the evolution of genetic, neural, linguistic, social, and cultural mechanisms that support intelligence. He says during the talk that information is mathematically a reduction of uncertainty. Similarly, intelligence is what we do that ensures that the problem is efficiently solved. Stupidity is a set of rules that guarantees the problem will take longer than chance to be solved, or will never be solved, and yet is nevertheless employed with alacrity and enthusiasm. Numbers are in some sense the lowest-hanging fruit in our mathematical education. There are many number systems in the world. There are ancient Sumerian cuneiform numbers, about four thousand years old. There are ancient Egyptian numbers. And here is a good example of stupidity in culture: western Europe, for fifteen hundred years, used Roman numerals—from about the second century BC well into the fifteenth century AD. Roman numbers are good at measuring magnitude, the number of objects, but terrible for performing calculations. What’s X + V? What’s XII multiplied by IV? It just doesn’t work, and yet for fifteen hundred years the human brain opted to deliberate over arithmetic operations using Roman numerals that don’t work. The consequence was that for much of their history Europeans could not divide and multiply. It’s extraordinary, because it’s unbelievably stupid when you realize that in India and Arabia, they had a number system. It started in India and then moved to Arabia. It was available by the end of the fourth century AD, and that is the system we use today, which can effortlessly multiply and divide numbers. He also raises an interesting question that is there a sense in which a certain culture has discovered a more efficient way of interacting with physical and cultural reality? He also contends that regardless, though, of whether or not there is intelligent life in the universe beyond our own planet, we have an intellectual obligation to populate it. That’s where I stand on the matter. If I have any kind of quasi-mythical belief system, it’s something to do with expanding the sphere of reason and sympathy into the world and beyond.

Last talk in the book is on future of humanity with Max Tegmark who is a professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the cofounder of the Future of Life Institute. He is the author of Our Mathematical Universe and Life 3.0. He explains his views on reality as that something out there independent of him. He says that the Andromeda galaxy would continue existing even if we weren’t here, for example. The scientist says, very humbly, “Okay, if there’s some stuff that exists out there—physical reality, let’s call it—let’s look at it as closely as we can and try to figure out what properties it has.” If there’s confusion about it, that’s our problem and not reality’s problem. He next explains his concept of mathematical universe. The only difference between a quark and an electron is what numbers they have as their properties. And if you take seriously the fact that everything is made of these elementary particles that have only mathematical properties, then you can ask, “What about the space itself that these particles are in? What properties does space have?” Well, it has the property three, for starters—its number of dimensions. Which, again, is just a number. Einstein discovered that space also has properties called “curvature” and “topology,” but they’re mathematical, too. If both space itself and all the stuff in space have only mathematical properties, then the idea that everything is completely mathematical and we’re just a part of this enormous mathematical object starts to sound a little less ridiculous. He says that John Wheeler’s “It from Bit” is right — the concept that at some level the universe is a computation. Then he delves in Metaverse and says that there are a lot of hints now in physics that what we call empty space is also like that: It can freeze and melt and come in many different variants. And inflation is so violent that if space can take many forms, inflation will create each of those kinds of space—and an infinite amount of it at that. So if you go really, really far away, you might find yourself in a part of space where there aren’t six kinds of quarks, as there are here, but maybe ten kinds, that is a different universe altogether. He ends on optimistic note that for humans it’s our ability to design and upgrade our own software that has enabled humans to become the planet’s dominant species.

View all my reviews

Posted in Book Reviews, Science, Technology | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Book Review – India from Curzon to Nehru and after by Durgadas

 

India from Curzon to Nehru and afterIndia from Curzon to Nehru and after by Durga Das
5 of 5 stars

 

I would rate this as the best book to understand India’s freedom struggle and to understand the role played by its heroes like Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, NetaJi and many others in throwing off the yoke of British empire. The book covers the history of Indian freedom struggle starting from Curzon and Tilak moving on to the phase where Gandhi came to the scene and led from the front to get India its independence and finally covering the Nehru era post independence. The author does not do any hero worship but provides an unbiased opinion of these heroes based on the facts and actual events covered by him as the leading journalist of that time.

The book covers in detail what led to the avoidable partition of India and role played by Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah in carving out an Islamic state which later failed spectacularly and finally metamorphosed into a terrorist state. The book also documents how this division of India was supported by British government and the role played by British leaders like Churchill who allegedly offered Pakistan on the platter to Jinnah. According to the author there were mistakes, omissions, ego clashes which led to the formation of an Islamic state within Indian subcontinent. Gandhi was against it but ultimately had to accept the fact that a section of Muslim population was not ready to live under Hindu rule. Gandhi correctly forecasted that state of Pakistan will remain in continuous conflict with India and the armies of the two nations will be fighting the endless and futile battles. The book also overs the dark side of Gandhi how he betrayed the nation by failing to stop Bhagat Singh’s execution as part of Gandhi-Irwin pact, his puerile fights against the likes of Subhash Chandra Bose, Kriplani, CR to maintain his hegemony over Congress.

The author also provided clues on how Jawahar Lal Nehru was preferred by Gandhi over other much deserving candidates first for the post of Congress President and then for the Prime Ministership of India. The socialist outlook of Nehru led to the state controlled economy in post independent India condemning multiple generations of Indians to poverty and deprivation off basic amenities. The author was well travelled and was in position to compare the policies in India with other states like Japan and Germany and came to the conclusion that approach of Indian government to focus more on heavy industries at expense of agriculture and private enterprise led to the chaos in economic sphere. The author met a number of world leaders as part of his journalistic duties and most had the common view that Nehru had no understanding of economics and made India a beggar nation dependent on outside aid.

The author also covered the 1962 debacle where Indian forces were routed by Chinese Red Army. The book has in the appendix, a letter written by Patel to Nehru forewarning him about the menace of China and how it needs to be tackled. Even after Patel’s passing, Nehru was warned repeatedly by Army Generals and opposition leaders but did not heed to their advice not taking any steps to control the situation finally made himself and whole of India a laughing stock among the polity of nations.

The books also documents how the egoistic Nehru would take the fight with his political opponents to the extreme like when he tried to scuttle the second term for President Rajendra Prasad and how he decided not to even attend his cremation. And how Nehru’s ego came in between and antagonised a number of countries in India’s neighbourhood like Vietnam, Burma, Nepal. Nehru wanted to be treated like world statesman but failed to understand that for that he first needed to make India economically advanced. A leader of a beggar nation cannot expect to be treated as an equal by developed countries. The author also covers the grooming of Indira Gandhi by Nehru and how the stage was set for her to take his legacy forward. This nepotism did not go well with senior Congress leaders and led to the breakup on Congress and set the rot in Congress organisation where rulers started exploiting the masses and led to the widespread corruption in all spheres across India.

The book can act as a great antidote to the propaganda machinary of Congress party and should be preferred over books by Congress acolytes like Ram Chandra Guha who are prone to hero worship. This book is a treasure trove of information on Indian politics and is a must read for anyone who wish to get a fair perspective on the Indian Independence struggle, the resulting partition of India and why contemporary India still lags behind other comparable nations like China, Japan, Germany etc. in both the quality of life of its citizens and robustness of its democratic institutions.

 

View all my reviews

Posted in Book Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Using blockchain to settle foreign exchange transactions

Wells Fargo is collaborating with HSBC to optimize settlement of foreign exchange transactions and reduce settlement risk.
— Read on stories.wf.com/using-blockchain-to-settle-foreign-exchange-transactions

Posted in Technology | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

देव शब्द रूप संस्कृत भाषा में

 

Posted in Sanskrit | Tagged | Leave a comment

संस्कृत में गिनती

संस्कृत हिंदी English
1 प्रथमः एक One
2 द्वितीयः दो Two
3 तृतीयः,त्रीणि तीन Three
4 चतुर्थः चार Four
5 पंचमः पाँच Five
6 षष्टः छः Six
7 सप्तमः सात Seven
8 अष्टमः आठ Eight
9 नवमः नौ Nine
10 दशमः दस Ten
11 एकादशः ग्यारह Eleven
12 द्वादशः बारह Twelve
13 त्रयोदशः तेरह Thirteen
14 चतुर्दशः चौदह Fourteen
15 पंचदशः,पञ्चदश पन्द्रह Fifteen
16 षोड़शः सोलह Sixteen
17 सप्तदशः सत्रह Seventeen
18 अष्टादशः अठारह Eighteen
19 एकोनविंशतिः,ऊनविंशतिः उन्नीस Nineteen
20 विंशतिः बीस Twenty
21 एकविंशतिः इक्कीस Twenty One
22 द्वाविंशतिः बाइस Twenty Two
23 त्रयोविंशतिः तेइस Twenty Three
24 चतुर्विंशतिः चौबीस Twenty Four
25 पञ्चविंशतिः पच्चीस Twenty Five
26 षड्विंशतिः छब्बीस Twenty Six
27 सप्तविंशतिः सत्ताईस Twenty Seven
28 अष्टविंशतिः अट् ठाईस Twenty Eight
29 नवविंशतिः,एकोनत्रिंशत् उनतीस Twenty Nine
30 त्रिंशत् तीस Thirty
31 एकत्रिंशत् इकत्तीस Thirty One
32 द्वात्रिंशत् बत्तीस Thirty Two
33 त्रयस्त्रिंशत् तेतीस Thirty Three
34 चतुर्त्रिंशत् चौतीस Thirty Four
35 पञ्चत्रिंशत् पैंतीस Thirty Five
36 षट्त्रिंशत् छत्तीस Thirty Six
37 सप्तत्रिंशत् सैंतीस Thirty Seven
38 अष्टात्रिंशत् अड़तीस Thirty Eight
39 ऊनचत्वारिंशत्, एकोनचत्वारिंशत्,उनतालीस Thirty Nine
40 चत्वारिंशत् चालीस Forty
41 एकचत्वारिंशत् इकतालीस Forty One
42 द्वाचत्वारिंशत् बियालीस Forty Two
43 त्रिचत्वारिंशत् तेतालीस Forty Three
44 चतुश्चत्वारिंशत् चबालीस Forty Four
45 पंचचत्वारिंशत् पैंतालीस Forty Five
46 षट्चत्वारिंशत् छियालीस Forty Sic
47 सप्तचत्वारिंशत् सैंतालीस Forty Seven
48 अष्टचत्वारिंशत् अड़तालीस Forty Eight
49 एकोनपञ्चाशत्, ऊनचत्वारिंशत् Forty Nine
50 पञ्चाशत् पचास Fifty
51 एकपञ्चाशत् इकक्यावन Fifty One
52 द्वापञ्चाशत् बाबन Fifty Two
53 त्रिपञ्चाशत् तिरेपन Fifty Three
54 चतुःपञ्चाशत् चौबन Fifty Four
55 पञ्चपञ्चाशत् पच्पन Fifty Five
56 षट्पञ्चाशत् छप्पन Fifty Six
57 सप्तपञ्चाशत् सत्तावन Fifty Seven
58 अष्टपञ्चाशत् अट् ठावन Fifty Eight
59 एकोनषष्टिः,ऊनषष्टिः उनसठ Fifty Nine
60 षष्टिः साठ Sixty
61 एकषष्टिः इकसठ Sixty One
62 द्विषष्टिः बासठ Sixty Two
63 त्रिषष्टिः तिरेसठ Sixty Three
64 चतुःषष्टिः चौसठ Sixty Four
65 पंचषष्टिः पैसठ Sixty Five
66 षट्षष्टिः छियासठ Sixty Six
67 सप्तषष्टिः सडसठ Sixty Seven
68 अष्टषष्टिः अडसठ Sixty Eight
69 एकोनसप्ततिः,ऊनसप्ततिः उनहत्तर Sixty Nine
70 सप्ततिः सत्तर Seventy
71 एकसप्ततिः इकहत्तर Seventy One
72 द्विसप्ततिः बहत्तर Seventy Two
73 त्रिसप्ततिः तिहत्तर Seventy Three
74 चतुःसप्ततिः चौहत्तर Seventy Four
75 पंचसप्ततिः पिचत्तर Seventy Five
76 षट्सप्ततिः छियत्तर Seventy Six
77 सप्तसप्ततिः सतत्तर Seventy Seven
78 अष्टसप्ततिः अठत्तर Seventy Eight
79 नवसप्ततिः, एकोनाशीतिः,ऊनाशीतिः उनयासी Seventy Nine
80 अशीतिः अस्सी Eighty
81 एकाशीतिः इक्यासी Eighty One
82 द्वाशीतिः बियासी Eighty Two
83 त्रयाशीतिः तिरासी Eighty Three
84 चतुराशीतिः चौरासी Eighty Four
85 पंचाशीतिः पिच्चासी Eighty Five
86 षडशीतिः छियासी Eighty Six
87 सप्ताशीतिः सत्तासी Eighty Seven
88 अष्टाशीतिः अट् ठासी Eighty Eight
89 नवाशीतिः,एकोननवतिः, ऊननवतिः नवासी Eighty Nine
90 नवतिः नब्बे Ninety
91 एकनवतिः इक्यानवे Ninety One
92 द्वानवतिः बानवे Ninety Two
93 त्रिनवतिः तिरानवे Ninety Three
94 चतुर्नवतिः चौरानवे Ninety Four
95 पंचनवतिः पिचानवे Ninety Five
96 षण्णवतिः छियानवे Ninety Six
97 सप्तनवतिः सतानवे Ninety Seven
98 अष्टनवतिः, अष्टानवतिः अठानवे Ninety Eight
99 नवनवतिः, एकोनशतम्, ऊनशतम् निन्यानवे Ninety Nine
100 शतम्, एकशतम् सौ, एक सौ Hundred,One hundred
101 एकाधिक शतम् एक सौएक One hundred one
1000 सहसम्र एक हजार One Thousand
10000 अयुतम् दस हजार Ten Thousand
100000 लक्षम् एक लाख One Lac

Posted in Sanskrit | Tagged | Leave a comment

संस्कृत लकार

संस्कृत भाषा में लकार कुल दस होते हैं।

  • लट् लकार (Present Tense)
  • लोट् लकार (Imperative Mood)
  • लङ्ग् लकार (Past Tense)
  • लृट् लकार (Second Future Tense)
  • विधिलिङ्ग् लकार (Potential Mood)
  • आशीर्लिन्ग लकार (Benedictive Mood)
  • लिट् लकार (Past Perfect Tense)
  • लुट् लकार (First Future Tense or Periphrastic)
  • लृङ्ग् लकार (Conditional Mood)
  • लुङ्ग् लकार (Perfect Tense)

 

उनमें से सबसे मुख्य पाँच लकार होते हैं। (लट् लकार, लङ् लकार, लोट् लकार, लृट् लकार तथा विधि लिङ् लकार) ही प्रचलन में है और इन्ही संस्कृत लाकर का सबसे ज्यादा प्रयोग भी किया जाता है।

इस बात को स्मरण रखने के लिए कि धातु से कब किस लकार को जोड़ेंगे, निम्न श्लोक स्मरण कर लीजिए-

लट् वर्तमाने लेट् वेदे भूते लुङ् लङ् लिटस्‍तथा ।
विध्‍याशिषोर्लिङ् लोटौ च लुट् लृट् लृङ् च भविष्‍यति ॥

अर्थात् लट् लकार वर्तमान काल में, लेट् लकार केवल वेद में, भूतकाल में लुङ् लङ् और लिट्, विधि और आशीर्वाद में लिङ् और लोट् लकार तथा भविष्यत् काल में लुट् लृट् और लृङ् लकारों का प्रयोग किया जाता है।

 

लट् लकार (Present Tense)

लट् लकार – (वर्तमान काल), वाक्य, उदाहरण, अर्थ – संस्कृत वर्तमान काल में लट् लकार का प्रयोग होता है। क्रिया के जिस रूप से कार्य का वर्तमान समय में होना पाया जाता है, उसे वर्तमान काल कहते हैं, जैसे- राम घर जाता है- रामः गृहं गच्छति। इस वाक्य में ‘जाना’ क्रिया का प्रारम्भ होना तो पाया जाता है, लेकिन समाप्त होने का संकेत नहीं मिल रहा है। ‘जाना’ क्रिया निरन्तर चल रही है। अतः यहाँ वर्तमान काल है। क्रिया सदैव अपने कर्ता के अनुसार ही प्रयुक्त होती है। कर्त्ता जिस पुरुष, वचन तथा काल का होता है, क्रिया भी उसी पुरुष, वचन तथा काल की ही प्रयुक्त होती है। यह स्पष्ट ही किया जा चुका है कि मध्यम पुरुष में युष्मद् शब्द (त्वम्) के रूप तथा उत्तम पुरुष में अस्मद् शब्द (अहम्) के रूप ही प्रयुक्त होते हैं। शेष जितने भी संज्ञा या सर्वनाम के रूप हैं, वे सब प्रथम पुरुष में ही प्रयोग किये जाते हैं।

1. युष्मद् तथा अस्मद् के रूप स्त्रीलिंग तथा पुल्लिंग में एक समान ही होते हैं।
2. वर्तमान काल की क्रिया के आगे ‘स्म‘ जोड़ देने पर वह भूतकाल की हो जाती है, जैसे– रामः गच्छति। (राम जाता है), वर्तमान काल- रामः गच्छति स्म। (राम गया था) भूत काल।

 

लोट् लकार (Imperative Mood)

लोट् लकार – (आज्ञार्थक), वाक्य, उदाहरण, अर्थ, आज्ञा, प्रार्थना अनुमति, आशीर्वाद आदि का बोध कराने के लिये लोट् लकार का प्रयोग किया जाता है।

 

 

लङ्ग् लकार (Past Tense)

लङ् लकार – (अनद्यतन भूत काल), वाक्य, उदाहरण, अर्थ – संस्कृत. अनद्यतन भूत में लङ् लकार होता है, जो कार्य आज से पूर्व हो चुका है अर्थात् क्रिया आज समाप्त नहीं हुई बल्कि कल या उससे भी पूर्व हो चुकी है, वह अनद्यतन काल होता है।

 

 

लृट् लकार (Second Future Tense)

लृट् लकार – (सामान्य भविष्यत काल), वाक्य, उदाहरण, अर्थ – संस्कृत. सामान्य भविष्यत काल में ‘लुट् लकार’ का प्रयोग किया जाता है। क्रिया के जिस रूप से उसके भविष्य में सामान्य रूप से होने का पता चले, उसे ‘सामान्य भविष्यत काल’ कहते हैं; जैसे – विमला पुस्तकं पठिष्यति। (विमला पुस्तक पढ़ेगी।)

 

 

विधिलिङ्ग् लकार (Potential Mood)

विधिलिङ् लकार – (चाहिए के अर्थ में), वाक्य, उदाहरण, अर्थ – संस्कृत विधि (चाहिये)निमन्त्रण, आदेश, विधान, उपदेश, प्रश्न तथा प्रार्थना आदि अर्थों का बोध कराने के लिये विधि लिङ् लकार का प्रयोग किया जाता है ।

 

आशीर्लिन्ग लकार (Benedictive Mood)

आशीर्लिन्ग लकार – (आशीर्वादात्मक), वाक्य, उदाहरण, अर्थ – संस्कृत. आशीर्वाद के अर्थ में आशीलिङ् लकार का प्रयोग किया जाता है, जैसे– रामः विजीयात्। (राम विजयी हो।)

 

 

लिट् लकार (Past Perfect Tense)

लिट् लकार – (परोक्ष भूत काल), वाक्य, उदाहरण, अर्थ – संस्कृत. ‘परोक्ष भूत काल’ में लिट् लकार का प्रयोग होता है। जो कार्य आँखों के सामने पारित होता है, उसे परोक्ष भूतकाल कहते हैं।

उत्तम पुरुष में लिट् लकार का प्रयोग केवल स्वप्न या उन्मत्त अवस्था में ही होता है; जैसे– सुप्तोऽहं किल विलाप। (मैंने सोते में विलाप किया।)
या जो अपने साथ न घटित होकर किसी इतिहास का विषय हो । जैसे :– रामः रावणं ममार । ( राम ने रावण को मारा ।)

 

 

लुट् लकार (First Future Tense or Periphrastic)

लुट् लकार – (अनद्यतन भविष्यत काल) में लुट् लकार का प्रयोग होता है। बीती हुई रात्रि के बारह बजे से, आने वाली रात के बारह बजे तक के समय को ‘अद्यतन’ (आज का समय) कहा जाता है। आने वाली रात्रि के बारह बजे के बाद का जो समय होता है उसे अनद्यतन भविष्यत काल कहते हैं; जैसे – अहं श्व: गमिष्यामि। (मैं कल जाऊँगा)

 

 

लृङ्ग् लकार (Conditional Mood)

लृङ्ग् लकार – (हेतु हेतुमद भूतकाल), वाक्य, उदाहरण, अर्थ – संस्कृत. क्रियातिपत्ति में लृङ्ग् लकार होता है। जहाँ पर भूतकाल की एक क्रिया दूसरी क्रिया पर आश्रित होती है, वहाँ पर हेतु हेतुमद भूतकाल होता है। इस काल के वाक्यों में एक शर्त सी लगी होती है; जैसे– यदि अहम् अपठिष्यम् तर्हि विद्वान अभविष्यम्। (यदि मैं पढ़ता तो विद्वान् हो जाता।). जब किसी क्रिया की असिद्धि हो गई हो । जैसे :- यदि त्वम् अपठिष्यत् तर्हि विद्वान् भवितुम् अर्हिष्यत् । (यदि तू पढ़ता तो विद्वान् बनता।)

 

 

लुङ्ग् लकार (Perfect Tense)

लुङ्ग् लकार – (सामान्य भूत काल), वाक्य, उदाहरण, अर्थ – संस्कृत. लुङ् लकार में सामान्य भूत काल का प्रयोग होता है। क्रिया के जिस रूप में भूतकाल के साधारण रूप का बोध होता है, उसे सामान्य काल कहते हैं। सामान्य भूत काल का प्रयोग प्रायः सभी अतीत कालों के लिये किया जाता है; जैसे– अहं पुस्तकम् अपाठिषम्। (मैंने पुस्तक पढ़ी।)

Posted in Sanskrit | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

I shall not live in vain…

 

Posted in Literature | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Book Review – The Patient Assassin by Anita Anand

 

The Patient Assassin: A True Tale of Massacre, Revenge and the RajThe Patient Assassin: A True Tale of Massacre, Revenge and the RajAnita Anand
5 of 5 stars

This is the fascinating story of Sardar Udham Singh who patiently but meticulously planned the assassination of the culprits of Jallianwala Massacre at Amritsar. The massacre in 1919 is arguably the most cowardly and dastardly act by British imperialiam anywhere in their brutal empire and led to the cold blooded execution of around 2000 unarmed and peaceful demostrators in a park in Amritsar including numerous women and children. It took Udham Singh more than two decades to bring his plan to execution but ultimately he did it in style by shooting dead Sir Michael O’Dwyer at London thus ending the life of a bigot who had ordered Martial Law in Punjab which ultimately resulted in the infamous massacre. Udham Singh took over the fictional identity of Mohammed Singh Azad in executing the revenge plan, a name which has a syllable each of the Muslim, Sikh and Hindu communities trying to unite Indian people who were being deliberately misled by the divide and rule policies of British occupation forces.

The author has done commendable research to bring to light hidden aspects of Udham Singh’s life, how he abandoned the love of his life, his own children and never let anything come in between him and his revenge. The story of Udham Singh’s meeting with Bhagat Singh, another Indian nationalist hero in Punjab jail where both were incarcerated at the same time needs perhaps further research but meeting with young Braveheart was quite impactful on Udham Singh and made his resolve ever firmer to exact revenge for Amritsar massacre.

The narrative of Indian independence struggle was hijacked by Nehru and Gandhi duo post 1947 and an utter falsehood of non violent nature of the struggle was imprinted on the minds of Indian population. This meant that the contribution of heroes like Udham Singh was sidelined or in most cases suppressed. Indian independence struggle was multi faceted and the part played by Ghadar party has been underplayed, it’s enlightening to read this story and understand the role of the number of Ghadar party leaders like Lala Hardayal who kept the armed struggle against the British occupation running as far as he Californian shores, Mexico border, Communist Russia, UK and other numerous locations.

The book also brings to the light, depravity of Nehru and Gandhi who publicly denounced the courageous act of Sardar Udham Singh at behest of their English lords, never in the annals of history, would anyone find a treachery as horrendous as that. What was worse was that Nehru actually ensured that his crony Krishan Menon was part of the defence of Udham Singh at London court-house and the guy did not let Nehru down. It is on record that Krishan Menon did not utter even a single word at the farce trial in defence of Udham Singh and he went one step further by ensuring that the final words of Udham Singh in that courtroom never see the light of the day. The author dug out those final words of Udham Singh’s and I wish that outcry of Inquilab Zindabad in defence of his motherland reaches to the ears of every Indian who should absolutely read this book. It took a Modi government to get the hero his due and after a lapse of seven decades, a statue of the Udham Singh was finally installed at Jallianwala park in 2018. A nation which cannot give its own heroes their due is bound to fail, it’s high time we Indians take cognisance of our own heroes and throw the pretenders like Nehru to the dustbin of history.

View all my reviews

Posted in Book Reviews, History | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment