This is the age of internet. People are spending more and more time online. They are e-mailing, socialising, chatting, downloading, uploading, sight-seeing, blogging. And of course they are searching. In fact, to perform all the previous tasks, one needs the help of a search engine like Google.
Google is so famous today for helping people find things on the internet that it is almost synonymous, with a search-engine.
Phrases like “google it” meaning “find it” are common. Recently, as I was talking to some of my friends, I asked them to think of someone who could supply anything and everything.
Some indeed mentioned God; most mentioned Google. This got me thinking and I started some research. Indeed, I found the ‘Church of Google’ on the internet. These people believe that Google is closest to the concept of God and their religion is officially called ‘Googlism’.
In fact, when you want to search for something and after typing it out, you hit the ‘pray’ button, instead of the ‘search’ button. The connection is obvious.
When you want to approach God, you pray, and so when you approach Google, you should pray. What’s more? They even have nine proofs that justify how Google is God.
Could Google be God? Those who were in favour of Google being God gave some good reasons. They suggested that he is very approachable – anyone could approach him for one’s needs. Google is all-knowledgeable – information about anything you want is readily available. Using Google Earth, you could check out any place on the planet whenever you want. Google is also impartial – anyone, be the rich or poor, gets the same result when they use Google to find something. I realised these people were getting sophisticated. They said Google knows almost all languages of the world – it could translate any page into any language to suit the user. Google is present everywhere on the planet – wherever you are, you could find him and use him. For Google, nothing is out of reach. If it exists, Google will have access to it. I was awestruck at my friends’ line of reasoning. Some neutral bystanders began thinking, “Well! Google very well could be God.”
Not to be outwitted, those in opposition launched their arguments. Google is not a person, they said. He is not independent – his existence is dependent on electricity. It can only supply what it is fed with. It cannot independently gather information. Although the button replacing “search” may have “pray” on it, yet Google can’t really listen to our prayers. Google helps us only when asked, not by itself. Google is created; it is not a creator. It doesn’t have any pastimes (pleasurable activities). Google is constantly in a flux – always changing. The information that it supplies always keeps on getting updated.
God is someone who is stable. Things didn’t quite settle with this debate. Later, in my office this short confrontation got me thinking more.
Qualities of Google
I thought Google is public in nature. Personal details about some person may be readily divulged to any other person without checking the intentions. Privacy is lost in these cases. It is very frustrating to have all kinds of private information about yourself being made available on the internet by someone. This kind of free-for-all information can sometimes even be dangerous. We have seen a spurt in the occurrences of e-crimes in recent years. But with God, all your information and feelings are perfectly safe and secure. God values one’s emotions and doesn’t share them with one and all.
Google is impersonal. There is no real person by that name existing. Today, people can’t do anything without the help of the internet or Google. Whatever they want to find information about, they search the internet for it. The only catch here is that there is no source attached to all this information. I have seen many students searching on the internet for material that they have been asked to research for their assignments. They search, get a few hits, copy all that is available and present it for their assignments. The writer’s name is not mentioned; his credentials are not mentioned. Actually, the internet is glorified for this very reason. Anyone who wants to write about anything is free to do so on the internet – no questions asked! Previously, people would research a particular topic for their whole lifetime and then probably come out with a book or so. It would immediately become a classic. Now this is not the case. The Vedas too stress on authority. In fact, more important than the knowledge presented is considered the source of that knowledge. It is easy to understand why.
Sometimes if the source is reliable, even incomplete knowledge is considered to be beneficial while detailed knowledge from a non-trustworthy source is discarded. We trust our mother and sometimes she doesn’t have all information about everything, and yet when she advises us, we trust her.
The right information in the hands of a wrong person has the potential to create unlimited damage. Thus, the Vedas explain that a prospective disciple accepts knowledge only from a bona fide spiritual master. To such a trustworthy person, he surrenders and accepts instructions wholeheartedly.
Google provides us with a lot of information. But is all that we get from it always useful to us? Is there any change in us post-receipt of that information?
Real knowledge is explained by the Vedas to be catalytic in producing transformation in our hearts. We could get enamoured of all the knowledge that is never out of reach courtesy of Google, but we have to ask, what is the value of all this knowledge? Does it help us in discrimination? Does it improve our lives really?
Srimad-Bhagavatam (1.1.2) gives an interesting definition of knowledge. It mentions vedyam vastavam atra vastu shivadam meaning “reality distinguished from illusion for the welfare of all”. The first part of this understanding viz “reality distinguished from illusion” is accepted universally. If something is real knowledge, it has to be true yesterday, today and tomorrow. The second part of the phrase is very interesting. “For the welfare of all” would require real knowledge to be
1. Stable,
2. Factual, and
3. Beneficial.
This is an authentic definition of knowledge.