Emotions

 The hardest thing in life is to appropriately deal with emotions. By that I mean to incorporate them meaningfully rather than to disregard them, to dismiss them as unnecessary, unwanted, useless or as obstacles. 

As human beings we can conjure up any thought we desire in an instant. To some degree we may also perform any action we desire at any time given that it doesn't break the laws of physics. But the realm of emotions presents a curious paradox in that what may 'seem right' might not at all 'feel right'. At times our feelings are at odds with our conscience, our ethics, our morals or sense of worth. 

Often we 'do the right thing' amidst feeling quite uncomfortable about it. Or we may delight in doing something we know is quite sinister and unwarranted, yet go ahead regardless. So what rôle do emotions play in shaping our character? What is shame for? Regret? Remorse? Hate? Vindictiveness? Fear? Love? Laziness? 

Domesticated animals with proper training might appear to display human traits such as calm, sombre patience, austerity and charity, discipline and obedience; but really they are just acting the part in expectation of a future reward. A way to know this for sure is to withhold any 'treats' (rewards) for a period of time and soon one will witness them reverting back to animalistic sense gratification behaviours. In training them with 'human' traits they are reduced to robots imitating learnt patterns. 

Human emotions - or for that matter, dog emotions - are a complex mixture of tastes (the Sanskrit term is rasa) whether they be positive (likes and preferences) or negative (dislikes and aversions). In one way these can all be classed as anarthas, unwanted things that get in the way of self-realisation, because they collectively represent impediments. The true transcendentalist is really not concerned with anything material, whether it be good or bad. Emotions can definitely be obstacles whenever they cloud our judgment. How many times have we made a bad decision based on being too emotional about a concern? How often do we let our partiality grant undue preference to an unworthy recipient? 

Let's take a hypothetical situation - one we would rather avoid at all costs. Picture two children trapped in a burning house. One is unknown to us, the other is our offspring who unfortunately is inflicted with a terminal disease with little time left to live. Who would we rescue? The child with the potential of having their whole life ahead of them, or our son or daughter who will be dead in a matter of months anyway? 

Of course, without even thinking most of us would instinctively rescue our close family. Emotions aside, it makes more sense to rescue the unknown child with greater lifetime potential. Altruism is borne by what is beneficial for the greater good rather than selfish considerations. 

All other things aside, the singlemost important factor in our lives is what makes us happy. This is 100% determined by our emotions. The happiness felt by a poverty-stricken child upon receiving a gift of a few beans may be far greater than what a corporate businessman feels making a couple of million dollars in a takeover. It's all relative, and it all comes down to rasa, the emotion we feel. 

Sometimes we need a pat on the back, sometimes we get more out of doing something for someone anonymously. It all depends. When I played in a band I'd get a buzz out of the audience cheering at gigs. But as a busker I sensed the appreciation more when a passer-by chucked in a gold coin for a Beatles or Stones cover. That is a truly individually motivated action, and one I learnt to cherish. Often drunkards leaning on the bar don't even clap because they are too busy using one of their hands to hold their beverage. 

History of Civilisation

It is very difficult to discuss the topic of 'what qualifies as a civilisation' without getting accused of being racist, white supremacist or whatever because technology is a product of advanced civilisations. Generally this involves permanent dwellings, communities and intensive farming. For instance although the Subcontinent has its tribal indigenous peoples such as the Vedda (aka mountain men of Sri Lanka), their ancient arts and sciences such as architecture, mathematics, music, astronomy, medicine, the wheel and other machines all came from the intellectual class of Brahminical society - not the Vedda. Because of their social class structure the intelligent pandits had the facility to concentrate on intellectual concerns where the “cream rose to the top”. The disc or wheel is an archetypal part of ancient Vedic mythology yet western historians place its invention to only four thousand years ago in line with the concept of early humans evolving from apes into primitive Neanderthals. This recent Darwinian concept is completely rejected by Easterners who adhere to time-honoured traditional lore.

Of course there is also the ancient mythology that Avatars (the embodiments of the Gods) descended from the heavenly planets and introduced knowledge of the arts and sciences to humanity. This concept is not restricted to the Subcontinent and indeed peoples from all over the globe share similar traditions of Gods descending eg Greeks, Scandinavians (Norse, Vikings etc), Orientals and American natives such as “Red indians”, Aztecs, Incas, and Mayan civilisations.

Either way, it appears that technological advancement is either a product of organised complex society, or God-given boons, or possibly both.

Not everyone agrees that Australian Aborigines are “the oldest continuous culture”. After all, they migrated from Asia and that's still here. It may be more accurate and scholarly to describe them as the most isolated for the longest time. It is impossible to date the origins of Chinese culture because it pre-dates the invention of writing and no records exist. A similar situation is prevalent in Indian folklore where they widely accept that their culture goes back millions of years. Certainly both these ancient cultures had highly organised and structured societies which is why they were so efficient and long-lived.

The Northern, Southern and Mesoamericans and various peoples of Oceania are easier to date, being much more recent. In a way the same could be said about Europe but to a lesser degree. Asia and Africa stand out as having the most ancient roots. Few historians argue about whether Aborigines migrated from mainland Asia via the land bridge that existed up until the Last Glacial Maximum when sea levels were hundreds of feet (or metres) lower than at present - it's more about when.

As to why technology appeared in Asia and not Africa - that might rest purely on the differences between tribal and civilised social structures. Perhaps “civilisations” were preoccupied with control, power and opulence by utilising and exploiting resources on a large scale rather than “living in harmony with nature” in small clans and tribes? As the saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention.

There is one controversial theory about early Aboriginal migration in that it was involuntary, that they were exiled by the ruling monarchy in Asia for refusing to abide by the King's (or Queen's) Laws. Survival plays a large role in the history of human migrations, whether it be across the Bering land bridge, the Out of Africa theory, the Out of India theory, the Mongolians and Huns of Eastern Asia, the Celts, Saxons, Slavs, Greeks and Romans of Europe or the Polynesians, Melanesians and Australasians of Oceania. Peoples have always been at war and on the move and Australians are no different. I mean, look at Australian politics!

Yet another controversial theory is that up until the Last Glacial Maximum (which ended 20,000 years ago) what is erroneously termed ‘The Last Ice Age’ (look at the frozen polar caps - technically we're still in an Ice Age) massive glaciation caused civilisations, nations, tribes and peoples in general to be cut off and become isolated. This geographical isolation caused a ‘losing touch with culture’ and a corresponding dumbing down of traditional knowledge as people retreated and sought shelter in caves and hospitable environments.

If you are to look at an atlas you will see that most of the major mountain ranges are aligned North-South (the Rockies & Andes of the Americas, Great Dividing Range of Australia, Scandinavia, the Urals of Russia, Ethiopian Highlands of Africa) An exception to this (and to a lesser extent the Swiss Alps of Europe) are the Himalayas which afforded India protection from the advancing glaciers and stopped them in their tracks. Traditional Indian folklore has it that this is why their culture has remained intact since prehistoric times. It also explains how Italy and Greece have some of the oldest prospering cultures in Europe.

So instead of the usual Cave Man myth of humans being unevolved and stupid we have a scenario where cultures that kept their knowledge base intact (India and China and perhaps Italy and Greece) maintained flourishing civilisations.. those that weren't cut off didn't had to start all over again. This may explain the dreamtime and creation myths of aborigines which are undated and untraceable. The ‘J’ shape of the Great Dividing Range would have afforded protection inland from the advancing glaciers of Antarctica, concurring with the vast inland sea of ancient Australia.

Worth noting is that Equatorial regions weren't affected so much by the Glacial period although temperatures would have been much cooler. This coincides with the oldest cultures inhabiting the stable Equatorial Zone. The Inuits of Alaska/Canada are a later migration, the first one or possibly two being the north and south Americans who have distinctively different genetic markers indicating separate waves of colonisation. Evidence points to the Inuits crossing the Bering land bridge between Russia and Alaska afterwards just as it was being inundated.

This means there were at least three waves of migration in the Americas. A similar thing may have occurred in Australia. We generally accept the forty to sixty thousand year date but some historians suggest an earlier first wave as far back a 120,000 years ago based on skulls excavated from ancient historical sites. So that means at least two waves.

None of this concurs with the biblical account of humans first populating Earth 4,000 years ago - nor the Vedic one of millions of years. In fact, all cultures have different accounts and none of them really line up. Do we dismiss them all or try to amalgamate them? Or is that archaeological heresy?

Carbon dating only goes back 55,000 years. Uranium however has a half life of 4.5 billion years and eventually decays to ordinary lead. This throws the biblical chronology into the ‘myth’ category. If creation is a mere 4,000 years old how can we have lead?