Achilles’ heel of intellectual world

The scholars base their facts on assumptions. The whole of the intellectual world starts with an assumption that a given thing is a fact. The best example is mathematics. They begin with the assumption that there is a zero and there is a quantity which can be equated to one.

You change the assumption, the whole world of logic and reasons become redundant.

The truth remains exclusive just like the god.

The scholars begins with an assumption. He assumes that a given thing or proposition is a fact. Around that seed he builds a world of truth and realities.


It seems that every assumption, if it is taken as true, has the right to acquire life. A world can be built around that assumption. The world gives the impression that it is true and final.


You change the assumption, the whole world created around the earlier assumption will crumble down as a house of cards.

The scientific methodology helps us to ascertain the veracity of a fact. However, it is an assumption which helps us to define any experiment. It is again a set of assumptions which are used to classify and derive conclusions from the data gathered from the experiment. It is again an assumption when the conclusion is used to pass the verdict on the thesis.

One thesis is proved to be true at a one point of time. But soon a counter fact emerge and dismantle the veracity of that thesis. If that thesis was true at a given point of time then how it has happened that it is proved wrong at other point of time. There is only one reason and that it is that the intellectual world begins from an assumption. The time changes, the assumption changes and thus the conclusion changes. Here is Hegel went wrong. He gives a rule. But if you start questioning that why every thesis would be followed by antithesis, then before jumping to the argument that it the gradual revelation of the idea, try to use the paradigm that it was the assumption which was changed. The assumption can change with time, it can change with place, it can also change with the circumstances which is again the function of time. In Shantiparva of Mahabharta, Bhimshma Pitmaha had put it is more effectively. He explained to Arjuna that whatsoever is dharma today will become Adharma tomorrow. The Adharma of today will become Dharma of tomorrow. The change take place with time, place and circumstances. Similarly, the same process and mechanism is explained in the last chapter of the Tulsi Ramayana. It is explained through Shakbhushundi, a crow.

Here again the question arises, that it is being explained as an ordained mechanism. It also try to same that it is a law that change would take place in a particular pattern. But, if we break ourselves from this type of understanding and try to question that if it happens like that, then why does it happen in that manner? It will bring you to the point where you may be compelled to ask that what actually goes in your thinking process when you identify a fact, or an information or a thesis as true. You call it hypothesis before declaring it as a thesis. It is a process by which the brain identify an assumption and then take that assumption as a thing or as an assertion. Then begins all the play of intellectual exercise.


Take any example of adopting a given fixed criteria with some variables. Now, through logic you can deduce a world of intellectual conclusions. But then declare that the starting premises was mere an assumption, you may find that all the derivations were mere exercise in mental imageries. The best example is accepting a god. For a second, do not identify god either with Christ, or Allah, or any symbol of god. Do not identify it with non descriptive existence or "Onkara" or the ultimate. Just try to feel and understand that it is an assumption. You will soon find, that whole of the world works like that. The best example of this exercise which have given results is mathematics. The quantification of any force, or anything thing, or even time, is an assumption. But try to see. Can you do without them now in this scientific world.


Further, the truth exists exclusive of your understanding of the truth. You can understand English. You may make out sense out of whatsoever is written up to this point. The same thing can be said in Chinese, in Arabic and Sanskrit. It can be said in Latin and Greek. But if they are used to convey whatsoever is said here in English, you would not able to understand anything. But the understanding can be conveyed to you in the language in which you can communicate. In India, many people know Hindi. But they do not know Sanskrit. Same thing can be said in Sanskrit. But a common man will not be able to make any sense out of it. Tell the common man the same thing in Hindi, he would understand what is being said here. Therefore, it means, that fact is exclusive of language.

For the same arrangement, it can be said, that truth remains as it is. Whatsoever, you consider as true is merely your assumption. Some assumptions help you to live a time with seemingly fruitful activity. But that does not mean that you actually know the truth. The truth remain separate from you assumption. It is only that your assumptions present a seemingly workable paradigm. But soon you realize that there is a shortcoming in your understanding. You do not say that your assumption was faulty. You would say that you have not understood the truth in the right form. There are some more contours of the truth which you have discovered now therefore, what you understand earlier was a half truth. This is how the world of intellect works. As far as the successes and achievements are concerned, they are mere mirage. The ultimate truth remain untouched and it keep on goading you to reach it but you never reach there. You can not get the truth. Whatsoever is with you is an assumption, which you take as true. That is not true. But you believe that it so. You have identified a method of enquiry which you call scientific enquiry. It is again an assumption. But it has shown some results. But it is not the ultimate way of learning the truth. The main lacuna is that it is based on assumption. It is some thing which Preto has said and explained. This is how the intellectual world lives. No doubt, the Indian Rishis were true and right, when they said, that wait for the intuition to receive the truth. That seems to be the only way. But again, it raises the same question and that it is, is it not an assumption?