We have to remember that what we observe is
not nature in itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.
2020-2021. This period of time has been terrible so far.
With everyone stuck at home due to the pandemic, a lot of things have happened
which may not have, had life been normal, like it was before the pandemic. We
have also seen the rise of so many social issues that were present before but
gained more prominence during the pandemic. The Black Lives Matter movement in
the US and Europe, the Palestine-Israel conflict, and so many conflicts in my
own country of India that naming them all would be a difficult task for it will
be a long list. What is even worse is that the media has a strong hand in the
worsening of these situations, due to their manipulation of facts to suit their
viewer demographic and increase in ratings.
So many outlets giving so many different facts, what started off as
questioning them has now become a phenomenon where people have started
accepting the fact that feels more convenient to them. Due to different people
groups believing in different facts, and neither one refusing to look at the
bigger picture out of the fear of losing their convenience and privilege,
people have resorted to violent verbal arguments and abuses, often leading to
physical confrontations and bloodbath.
All of this reminds me of a story, a parable, which actually
has its origins in the Indian sub-continent that I was told as a kid by the
elders in my family. It goes something like this (since I do not know the exact
words, I have resorted to extracting it from Wikipedia, which I felt was
similar to what I have heard):
A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an
elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its
shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it
by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they
found it they groped about it. The first person, whose hand landed on the
trunk, said, "This being is like a thick snake". For another one
whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another
person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a
tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said the elephant,
"is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The
last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like
a spear.
The conclusion of this parable has different iterations that
were developed by different civilizations throughout different periods in
history. All iterations provide different solutions to this conundrum. Three of
them stand out which I feel that they pertain to what is happening in our
country right now.
First:
The first one is that all the men state their theories based
on what they have observed. When they find out that they differ in opinions,
they end up arguing over who is right and it turns into a violent
confrontation. The 19th century American poet, John Godfrey Saxe,
had written a poem based on this. In that, he wrote the following lines (again,
source is Wikipedia):
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and
long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and
strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the
wrong!
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has
seen!
In fact, even Buddha had his own iteration of the parable. In the Udana (68–69) he uses the elephant
parable to describe sectarian quarrels. The conclusion to that was as follows:
O how they cling and wrangle, some who claim
For preacher and monk the honored name!
For, quarreling, each to his view they cling.
Such folk see only one side of a thing.
What they tried to convey was that the men were busy fighting over
their own observations that they remain ignorant to the truth that lies in that
of others. After all, they were fighting about an elephant that neither of them
has ever seen. Now you may ask yourself, how is this related to what is
happening right now?
In a philosophical point of view, we are like the blind men. We
sit at home and make observations based on what is fed to us by the media, both
news as well as social media. Neither of us have seen the reality with our own
eyes. Majority of the people simply stick to a singular source that seems most
convenient to them and choose to brand their observation of the situation
through the eyes of that source as the whole truth. Then they end up arguing
over who is right and who is wrong, and due to present day human nature, nobody
wants to be in the wrong. This leads to the failure of being able to accept the
other person’s observation, and may eventually lead to a violent confrontation,
either verbal, or physical, or both.
This is exactly what is happening right now.
Since the start of the Palestine-Israel conflict ages ago, I have
seen people arguing over who is right and who is wrong. Recently, with the
whole escalation of the issue to a new level, celebrities have started taking
sides, with some supporting Israel while others supporting Palestine. Most of
the people get their information from a singular source, with very few of them
who had done some actual research on the topic. This has led to their followers
either supporting them or abusing them, which in turn has led to their
followers fighting among themselves. The broader effect of this is the rise in
anti-semetism and anti-Muslim/anti-Arab sentiments among the people. Everyday
we see that Jews, Arabs and/or Muslims around the world are being targeted as a
part of the rise in hate crimes and racist violence.
India is not immune to this problem. Everyday we have supporters
of various political parties fighting over whether the actions of the
central/state government are right or wrong, and it has come to a point where
common citizens like me cannot believe any form of media for information as all
forms of media, especially news channels seem to manipulate facts in the way
they see fit. Civilized debates have turned into verbal abuses on public
television with participants going as far as issuing death threats to others
and their families.
Now, I am not saying everyone is wrong. Some of them might be
right, some might actually be wrong, and some might be partially right and
partially wrong. The fact of the matter is that no one seems to be interested
in taking the time to identify. Actually, no one is interested because no one
wishes to be wrong.
Second:
This iteration, I feel, is the easiest and the most difficult. In
fact, it seems like the easiest and best solution the problem. This was one
that I have heard from an elder in my family. It went something like this:
When the
men discovered that all of them had varying perceptions, they utilized the aid
of a man with the gift of sight. As he described the elephant to them, they
realized that while their observations were true, their perception of reality
was false.
What I perceive from this is that sometimes, to understand the
whole truth, we may need the aid of a person who is able to see reality, who
has observed and experienced the situation right at its epicentre.
The famous Persian poet, Rumi, has an iteration of this parable in
his Mansavi, called “The Elephant in the Dark”. Here is the conclusion to the
poem, as translated by Coleman Barks:
Each of us touches one place
and understands the whole in that way.
The palm and the fingers feeling in the dark are
how the senses explore the reality of the
elephant.
If each of us held a candle there,
and if we went in together,
we could see it.
Here, the candle is the person who has seen things with his own
eyes. With his aid, and working together with everyone, and acknowledging all
the facts and perceptions from all sources, we will be able to see a clearer
picture, the absolute truth, reality as a whole. Then we will be able to know
if we were right or wrong, if it was our observations that were false or our
perception. We will finally be able to understand that even though we are
right, the other person may not necessarily be wrong, just that they have
observed from a different viewpoint.
Why do I feel this is the easiest solution? Having someone who
knows every bit of detail, who has seen things with their own eyes, who will
help us see ourselves is indeed the easiest way to understand. At the same
time, why do I feel it is the most difficult? Finding such a person is
extremely difficult in this day and age.
Third:
This iteration probably offers the best solution we can apply
right now, and maybe the best solution of all time, as nowadays it is difficult
to know what is right and what is wrong.
Jain texts from the medieval period discuss the concepts of anekāntavāda (multi-sidedness) and syādvāda (conditioned viewpoints) with the iteration of the parable called Andhgajanyāyah.
It can be found in Tattvarthaslokavatika of Vidyanandi and Syādvādamanjari of Āchārya
Mallisena . Mallisena has stated that:
Due to extreme delusion produced on account of a partial
viewpoint, the immature deny one aspect and try to establish another
It can roughly be perceived as
those who deny various aspects of the truth are deluded by the aspects they do
understand and deny those that they do not. Mallisena also puts stress on the
importance of considering all viewpoints to get a full picture of reality.
It is impossible to properly understand an entity consisting
of infinite properties without the method of modal description consisting of
all viewpoints, since it will otherwise lead to a situation of seizing mere
sprouts, i.e., a superficial, inadequate cognition
Let us utilize the Trial of George Floyd as an example. By now, we
all know the case of George Floyd. His death led to protests not only
throughout the US, but in Europe and other parts of the world as well. During
the trial, multiple camera footages were observed as evidence. They used the
CCTV footage from the store, the body cam of the officers involved, the footage
shot by eyewitnesses at the scene, and eyewitness accounts. Based on all these,
the final verdict was given, and officer Derek Chauvin was pronounced guilty.
The verdict was not based on one singular source of evidence.
Multiple viewpoints (can be perceived as both literal and metaphorical) were
considered to paint a clearer picture of what happened at the scene. That shows
the importance of considering all viewpoints.
When it comes to perceiving the actual truth, instead of arguing
amongst ourselves as to who is right and who is wrong, what we could do is take
into consideration everyone’s viewpoint and/or all facts from multiple sources,
analyze them, and piece them together to see if they fit. This way, not only
will we be able to see the whole truth, understand reality as it actually is,
but we will be able to identify the right from wrong, for everyone may not be
right all the time and everyone may not be wrong. In a much broader sense, this
may even help us perceive our observations in the right way rather than what
feels convenient to us and help us be considerate of other’s observations as
well, for we may be partially wrong, and they may be partially right.
Conclusion:
Everything that we perceive may not be reality. Even if we observe
the truth, we may perceive something that is false. Those who observe the
situation differently may not necessarily be wrong, and that is applicable to
us ourselves. If we put aside our differences and work together with what we
have, we may just be able to picture the truth as it really is, without
straying away from reality.
I wrote this based on the stories I have heard and the
observations I have done. This is my perception of things. I am not stating
that I am absolutely right. I may be right, I may be wrong, I may even be
partially right. If there is anyone out there who has a different point of
view, do share with me, I am open to learn. Maybe we can work together, pool
all our facts in, try to piece them together, and understand reality as it
really is, together.
