The co-founder of "Crips" gang, Stanley T. Williams, aged 51, was executed in San Quentin State Prison, in the State of California, U.S.A., this December (The Indian Express, December 14, 2005, courtesy, Associated Press). He was kept as a convict for 24 long years—for almost half his life—on death row. His long-standing case of murder, to which he never admitted, has led to a national debate about capital punishment versus the possibility of redemption. Many people in the state desired that the death sentence be commuted to life in prison, as he claimed innocence. Because of his personal encounter as a gang leader he understood and later disapproved of gang-culture. He wrote children's books about the dangers of gangs and violence of which he was himself a voluntary victim, and he knew the psychology of the violent groups of men.

His request for clemency was denied by the Governor of the State of California, "because he had not shown any real remorse for the killings committed by the Crips." However, he pleaded innocence and spoke about the newly found peace in his heart. The protesters carried placards stating that executing him was no less a cold-blooded, state-sponsored murder! One of the ex-members of the Crips gang resolved to spread Williams' message against gang violence. The execution witnesses like the prison warden reported that when the nurse had trouble finding the vein for the lethal injection, Williams offered to help.

Man is often a victim of his environment to which, at first, he is drawn under the law of Karma by birth and by constitutional tendencies in him. Indeed, there are those who had the strength to come out of the atmosphere of strife, hatred or lust for power. Those who succumb and continue with the degrading state, end up as incorrigible and confirmed criminals. Experts in this matter agree that there are such unfortunate people who cannot be radically reformed but whose passion and energy can be utilized by directing them to some useful purpose. A social culture, which meekly tolerates, if not encourages values of aggressiveness, exploitation, etc., is found to nurture pockets where a gang and its leaders thrive. But weakness of human nature cannot just be crushed out by imposing so-called deterrent measures like capital punishment or imprisonment, by law enforcement, or by easy-going tolerance and false sympathy for the criminal's and evil conduct.

The Great Master's letter states: "How is the combative [Italics ours] natural instinct of man to be restrained from inflicting hitherto unheard-of cruelties and enormities, tyranny, injustice, if not through the soothing influence of Brotherhood, and of the practical application of Buddha's esoteric doctrines?" (U.L.T. Pamphlet No. 33). Our duty, therefore, is to keep reminding of great human possibilities lurking in our heart, which when encouraged will unfold astonishing qualities. The example of, what appears to be inner change of the ex-gang leader Williams is quite heartening and shows the possibility of inner conversion, even in a hardened criminal, if kept alive. Besides, an executed criminal has greater influence on sensitives and other criminals, on the inner planes, than while he is in the body. Although Theosophy puts the responsibility squarely on the individual, and emphasizes efforts on transformation of human nature, the community too can help by creating an environment conducive to a refined and virtuous nature. There is the collective responsibility of reforming or rehabilitating confirmed criminals and convicts. It is a complex task, which could involve the criminal justice system, deep understanding of the psychology of various types of violent men, and well-thought out strategies drawn by professional expertise. This may seem a herculean task, since to reform human nature seems a never-ending exercise. Our role is to carry on our theosophical duty to raise the heart and mind of man for the better.

Will science explain mental illnesses such as depression, bipolar disorder (or manic depression) and schizophrenia? The issue was debated by Peter McGuffin, director of the social, genetic and developmental psychiatry centre at King's College, London, and Steven Rose, director of the brain and behaviour research group at the Open University (Prospect, October 2005). McGuffin believes that molecular genetics and understanding of the brain structure and activity hold the key to mental disorders. Since many psychiatric disorders are thought to be a blend of heredity and social "stressors," present genetic studies help in identifying those genes. Further, a better understanding of neuropsychology and neurobiology may not only help us treat better but also provide a deeper knowledge of causes—reducing the fear and mystery surrounding mental illness.

As against this, Steven Rose observes that assuming for every psychic state a corresponding brain state, so that the brain processes of a mentally ill person would differ from a "normal" person, may alleviate the symptoms by manipulating brain chemistry. But could this "explain" the mental illness? He argues:

The fact that a drug such as Prozac, which affects serotonin reuptake, will alleviate the depression in many patients, is sometimes taken to mean that the depression is caused by a deficit in serotonin metabolism. Yet the flaw in the logic of such an argument is clear; aspirin alleviates the pain of toothache, but we do not conclude that the cause of the toothache is too little aspirin in the brain. So where do the determining causes lie?

Though biochemical and genetic factors help to explain why one person becomes depressed in a given set of circumstances while another does not, it is not likely that in most cases the major determinant is biochemical. Rose observes that in the passage of time one biomarker (biochemical cause) of a mental disorder has been replaced by another and so also one "scientific method" has been succeeded by a new one. Just as Freudian methods and conclusions are being replaced by new conclusions, so also in a hundred years from now—or sooner—today's attempts to locate causes in terms of genes will seem similarly misguided. Rose writes:

I am still not sure whether you would want to argue that, once you have catalogued all your genes of small effect, you would say you have "explained" the "causes" of schizophrenia. The phenotypic effect of any one of your genes will be probabilistic....It may be that your techniques will point to new drug prospects, but I fear that "explanation" will still elude simple reductionism.

What is the cause of most physical and mental disorders? Mr. Judge answers this question in the article, "Replanting Diseases for Future Use":

Mind is the container of the efficient causes of our circumstances, our inherent character and the seeds that sprout again and again as physical diseases as well as those purely mental. It is the mover who is either voluntary in his motion, free if it will, or moved hither and thither by every object and influence and coloured by every idea. From life to life it occupies body after body, using a new brain instrument in each incarnation. As Patanjali put it ages ago, in mind lie planted all seeds with self-reproductive power inherent in them, only waiting for time and circumstances to sprout again. Here are the causes for our diseases.

We need to have right thinking, right ideas and the will to put them into practice. "Those who break Nature's laws lose their physical health; those who break the laws of the inner life, lose their psychic health," says Light on the Path. The same mystical book mentions the need to learn to keep the mental poise. If grief, dismay, disappointment or pleasure can shake the soul (mind) to such an extent that it loses its hold on the calm spirit, then all is blurred, the divine is no longer able to guide and help us.

Patanjali mentions certain positive attitudes, such as benevolence, tenderness and complacency, that help in purifying the mind, and Mr. Judge adds a note that the practice of these "brings about cheerfulness of the mind, which tends to strength and steadiness."

Some of the causes of the diseases are carried forward from earlier lives. Thus, transmission of physical traits and mental peculiarities by means of parent and body (i.e., heredity) is exactly the mode selected by nature for providing the Ego with the proper body through which to carry on its work. It is the Karma of previous lives which "governs the station in life, sex, the conditions of the irresponsible years of childhood, the constitution with the various diseases inherent in it, and in fact all those determining forces of physical existence which are ordinarily classed under the terms, 'heredity' and 'national characteristics.'" (U.L.T. Pamphlet No. 6)

"Can one believe that everything we call 'human,' such as intelligence, emotions, values and even self-awareness, really results from physical processes that can in theory (and increasingly in practice) be duplicated or surpassed by non-biological systems—namely, machines?" asks Mukul Sharma (Times International, December 17, 2005). In what way is man superior to science-fiction creations—from Frankenstein to robotics? It is really scary that while evolutionary processes took millions of years to produce brainpower, which we interpret as intelligence, computers have taken less than 60 years. But the important question is: "Will computers ever have self-realization like we do?" Some believe that though an individual computer may not compare with human brain with its hundred billion nerve cells, Internet could so compare and in the course of time, when Net's interconnectivity level begins to equal the one inside our head, then it is possible it could slowly develop awareness. However, in the absence of body and the sensory apparatus, how could this entity become aware of the phenomenal world? "A living Internet would possess an astonishing memory, all the knowledge of the world and the ability to process any amount of data at the speed of light, but it would be totally ineffectual in projecting itself in any way to impinge upon us. In other words, when we finally manage to create another form of life with its own siliconised awareness, we would never be able to know about it," writes Sharma.

Many proponents of Artificial Intelligence believe that machines with their superior intelligence will, one day, make men superfluous. Is it possible? Harvard physicist John H. Troll presented lucid exposition of capabilities and limitations of modern electronic computers in his article "The Thinking of Men and Machines" (The Atlantic Monthly, July 1954), part of which is reproduced in the article "Mind, Brain and Machine" (The Theosophical Movement, November 1954). He observes that a good "thinking" machine can remember, classify, choose between alternatives on the basis of logic and, acting on past experience, can even correct itself; but activity of any one machine is strictly limited to the instructions with which it is fed, in the form of mathematical formulae or other code mechanisms. In spite of its speed, precision and infallibility, the most "intelligent" computer cannot correlate dissociated ideas and events spread out in time and space and present an original thought or an unexpected query. Its conclusions are foregone and even if it "comes up with a million theories...it would have no criterion for selecting the ones that are meaningful. It always takes a human to come up with the approach, the generalization, the idea which furnishes the basis for the machine's lightning checking, applying, and finding of new facts."

We are made aware of the need, not only to distinguish between brain and machine, but also between brain and mind as also between the higher (Buddhi-Manas) and the lower (Kama-Manas) mind. Mind is not an epiphenomenon of matter, as some believe, and brain is only an instrument of the mind. Faithful replication of even the human brain would be a great achievement. H.P.B. describes brain to be a complex thing, both physically and metaphysically. "It is like a tree whose bark you can remove layer by layer, each layer being different from all the others, and each having its own special work, functions, and properties." (Transactions, p. 64)

Frankenstein, in Mary Shelley's mystic tale, who created a man-monster, which destroyed him after committing numerous atrocities, is said by one of our Masters to be a possibility in nature. However, mechanically constructed machines are different from the direct products of Kriyasakti, "the mysterious power of thought which enables it to produce external, perceptible, phenomenal results by its own inherent energy" (S.D., I, 293). We need fear no robot or computer as it could never possess self-consciousness, freedom of choice, creative thinking or exhibit higher powers of the mind, such as intuition, imagination or compassion—all prerogatives of man endowed with mind.

All men face what is inevitable. Why should death be feared? We begin to die as soon as we are born. At what moment, then, should we be most fearful of leaving the known for the unknown? Understandably, there may be a desire to postpone the transition—for ourselves and for our loved ones—but of what is there to be afraid?

Our physical body is lent to us as a house in which we live. When that dwelling becomes unfit for the purpose for which it was intended, a kind and benevolent nature has provided a way to get rid of that shell. That way is death.

Why then, should we be sad or rebellious? Death does bring changes and adjustments for those who are left behind. The warmth and association of former days are gone. The silence, the finality, the incommunicability disturb, but for our loved one who has triumphed, there should be rejoicing. Sorrow is centered on self.

—Benjamin Franklin