गरुड पुराणमा पृथ्वी–सूर्य दूरी र ध्यानजन्य ‘अतिचेतना’
Sandeha, Skepticism, Nepali Shashwat Pokharel Sandeha, Skepticism, Nepali Shashwat Pokharel

गरुड पुराणमा पृथ्वी–सूर्य दूरी र ध्यानजन्य ‘अतिचेतना’

गरुड पुराणभित्र, दोस्रो खण्ड— जसलाई प्रेत कल्प वा प्रेत खण्ड भनिन्छ— मृत्यु–संस्कार र परलोकलाई समर्पित छ। अनुवादअनुसार फरक पर्न सक्छ, तर सामान्यतया अध्याय ३३, श्लोक ३ मा कुनै दूरीको नाप उल्लेख हुन्छ। त्यहाँ भगवान् विष्णु गरुडलाई भन्छन्— ‘मानव लोक र यमलोकबीचको मार्ग नापअनुसार छयासी हजार योजन लामो छ।’ गरुड पुराण सारोद्धार— मूल ग्रन्थको संक्षिप्त रूप— मा यही कुरा अध्याय २, ‘यमको मार्गको वर्णन’ मा यसरी आउँछ— ‘वैतरणीबाहेक यमको मार्ग छयासी हजार योजन लामो छ।’ यही संस्करणले आत्माले यमलोक पुग्न दिनको ठ्याक्कै २४७ योजन यात्रा गर्ने पनि उल्लेख गर्छ। ८६,००० लाई २४७ ले भाग गर्दा ३४८ दिन आउँछ— यसैकारण गरुड पुराणले सुरुमा झन्डै वर्षभरि नै किरिया–प्रथा गर्न सिफारिस गरेको थियो, दैनिक पाठसहित— उद्देश्य थियो, मृतकको आत्मा यमलोक नपुगुन्जेल ती ३४८ दिन पर्खने। पछि क्षेत्रीय विद्वान्हरूले यसलाई १३ हप्ता र अन्ततः १३ दिनमा घटाए, किनभने मानिसको जीवन व्यस्त हुँदै गयो र वर्षभरिको किरिया–प्रथा व्यावहारिक रहेन।

Read More
Garud Puran, distance from earth to sun, and meditation
Sandeha, Skepticism Shashwat Pokharel Sandeha, Skepticism Shashwat Pokharel

Garud Puran, distance from earth to sun, and meditation

It is very easy to make absurd claims — yet look at how much work it took just to get to the bottom of these few. Don’t feel bad about that asymmetry; I happen to be a weird guy who enjoys the mental exercise. Picking apart claims I’m skeptical of is, for me, a way of thinking better. It is also why this blog is called Sandehakari — doubt first, then find out. I approached these claims by giving the people making them the benefit of the doubt rather than dismissing them outright. Then I examined the claims on their own terms, looked up the sources they pointed to (here, the Sanatan/Hindu scriptures), and checked whether their logic held and whether they contradicted their own stated knowledge.

Read More
चेतनाको बारेमा
Philosophy, Nepali Shashwat Pokharel Philosophy, Nepali Shashwat Pokharel

चेतनाको बारेमा

त्यसैले मस्तिष्क नै हाम्रो चेतन सजगता, व्यक्तित्व, स्मृति, रोजाइ, कार्य, रुचि र संवेदनशीलताको आसन हो भन्नेमा थोरै मात्र शंका छ। के ब्याक्टेरिया संवेदनशील छ? सायद छैन। के हामी छौं? हो, छौं — र त्यसको स्पष्ट जिम्मेवार हाम्रो मस्तिष्क हो।

अब, कोही-कोही “यो सबै मस्तिष्क हो” सुन्नेबित्तिकै विज्ञानले आफ्नो भित्री जीवनलाई नक्कली भनिरहेको ठान्छन् — र ठ्याक्कै यही डर गुरुहरूले फाइदा उठाउँछन्। त्यसैले म के होइन भन्दैछु, प्रस्ट पारौं। म तपाईंको अनुभव भ्रम हो, वा तपाईं “खाली रसायन मात्र” हो भन्दै छैन। तपाईंको भित्री जीवन पूर्ण रूपले वास्तविक छ — कल्पना, माया, शोक, संगीत, बिहानको चियाको स्वाद, सबै वास्तविक छन्। म त यति भन्दैछु कि यी मस्तिष्कले उत्पन्न गर्छ र मस्तिष्कबाट छुट्टिएर तैरिँदैनन्। पेटले पाचन उत्पन्न गरेजस्तै सोच्नुहोस्: पाचन वास्तविक छ, तर त्यो पेटमाथि तैरने छुट्टै पदार्थ होइन — त्यो त पेटले गर्ने काम हो। चेतना मस्तिष्कले गर्ने काम हो: एउटा साँचो, प्रथम-पुरुष अनुभव जुन एकैसाथ पूर्ण रूपले जैविक प्रक्रिया पनि हो — कुनै दोस्रो, प्रेतात्मक पदार्थको आवश्यकता छैन।

Read More
On Consciousness
Philosophy Shashwat Pokharel Philosophy Shashwat Pokharel

On Consciousness

“You are what your brain makes you, and your brain is nothing but the generator of your ‘self.’”

Most people know the nature-versus-nurture debate. To understand identity in the broadest sense, replace the “versus” with “and” — it is nature and nurture, because the two aren’t mutually exclusive. By nature I mean what’s largely outside human control — our genetic makeup, how the nervous system develops in the womb, diseases or injuries around birth or later. By nurture I mean the influence of society — the community we’re born into, our parents, our friends, our relationships. As we grow, the brain processes all this while still developing, and it processes it differently for everyone, because every brain is similar yet very different. These intricate interplays — plus the brain’s constant revising of memory and behavior — settle into a sense of identity, especially as the brain stops developing as rapidly after about 26 to 30 years of age, when a more rigid sense of self sets in.

This is also why “the brain is just a computer” undersells it. You can run the same program on very different machines, and in the same way a feeling like pain isn’t identical to one exact pattern of cells — an octopus, or one day perhaps a machine, could feel something while built completely differently. Mental life is fully physical, yet it can’t be flattened into a single tidy description of wiring: real, physical, and not reducible to one neat formula, all at once. (The textbook names for these positions are biological naturalism and non-reductive physicalism, but the plain idea matters more than the labels.) The mystics need you to believe science empties your inner life of meaning so they can sell the meaning back to you. It doesn’t, and you don’t need to buy it back.

Read More