What I really wanted was a decision procedure
Disclaimer: I understand nothing. I want Dharma to mean “a way to live a good life”. It could mean something totally different. There are two positive outcomes that might come from this post. Someone becomes curious about trying to figure this out, and perhaps explores traditional texts. Or someone who has a different perspective or a better understanding of these ideas gets riled up and attacks my position.1
A few months ago, I decided to read the Dasbodh like it were a book as opposed to a religious book. This was a result of two ideas- one, a famous hacker news blogger mentions “reading St Augustine” casually in one of his posts, in a way which indicates that he is genuinely curious about Augustine’s writings. Few people talk about Hindu scripture with curiosity, or excitement. Second, when reading a religious book, one is preemptively inclined to accept its content as truth. And so I started reading the Dasbodh like I would read nonfiction- with interest, somewhat critically, and in swaths of pages instead of “one page a day” as if it were a chore (or a prayer). While I don’t understand it, it does have some powerful punches- some statements directly speak to me, and hit home.
A conversation about this devolved into philosophical debate (like it always does). Scripture was supposed to give me a framework for how to be righteous. The body of scripture is vast, and the things that float to the top inadvertently are the ones which talk about finding moksha. I do not understand what that is (if I did, I wouldn’t be here). It is also mentioned that attaining moksha is rare, and is a journey of many lives. My problems are simpler- I first want to live the right way. But there’s no concrete deterministic procedure. I want to be good and right and decent. Truly. But I don’t know how. Be truthful, don’t harm others, follow A, B, and C.. The problem with written word- it would be impossible to prescribe the “right way” for every possible circumstance.
What I really wanted, then, was an algorithm. Or an AI. I wanted Dharma to be a decision procedure.
From my broken false-knowledge, Dharma has been, is, and will be. Across universe and era and apocalypse, Dharma remains.
And the Vedanta. Has been, is, and will be. And the world and time. Has been, is, and will be.
Then of course, machines have been, are and will be. Programs have been, are, and will be. “AI” has been, is and will be.
I reach my crescendo2- why is Dharma scripture then, when it could have been a decision procedure? Scripture could have been an intelligence. Seekers ask, and it shall answer. “This is the right way” . And the right way might be Hard, but the Virtuous will Do The Right Thing and Not Care About The Outcome. This was not parody. I was being sincere.
Then it hits me. What I have been describing is a scenario out of apocalyptic science fiction, where life has been reduced to following optimal instructions from a computer. Somewhat (but not exactly) a la Asimov’s “The Evitable Conflict”. There would be no beauty to a Dharma which reduces good to rule-following. Taken further, my wish becomes the old complaint “Why wasn’t the system designed to not have suffering in first place?” which is a complicated way of saying “Why is life not easy?”.
So no, I do not want an AI. I do want to become a fearless agent of a righteous decision procedure. I don’t think such an agent will be bland. There is room for beauty within the constraints of righteousness.
Some refrains.
The desire to know and do what is right seems innate, but I can think of a few threads which fuel mine. First, if I know my action is right, then painful outcomes become acceptable. Second, in ambiguous situations, especially ones which involve the possibility of harm to other people (and to oneself- “self-harm is legal, because I am a free human” is also a fallacy), when none of the actions, and inaction all seem wrong, one feels helpless. Being able to find the “least evil” action will help here. Third, sometimes actions that seem right intuitively, rationally, or based on once conscience at a time, turn out to be wrong later.
There’s several pitfalls- in ignorance, one might gain confidence and strength by deeming an action righteous, while the correctness of the action stands on shaky ground. Sometimes, the question isn’t of right and wrong but of utility3, and one might incorrectly mix the two. Finally, inspite of knowing what the right action is, one might fail to carry it out. I certainly have. Now one is forced to temper “righteousness” with the estimation of ability, which starts leaning towards predicting the future- another tough question.
I have no answers.