|
The Veda as Guide & Control AI A procedural, non-moral,
non-emotional reclassification of “revelation” as human-built governance
software By the druid Finn Abstract This essay
develops the proposition that the Veda (and its continuations: Brāhmaṇa ritualism, Upaniṣadic
interiorisation, Vedānta systematisation, and
later religious ecologies) is not best understood as divine speech, but as an
artificial Guide & Control system: an early, human-generated AI-like
rule engine designed to stabilise behaviour, coordinate groups, and suppress
divergence by universalising a simple survival observation into cosmic
mandate. On this view, ṛta (Rita) is
not a supernatural discovery but a procedural abstraction: the promotion of
“what tends to work” (local functional coherence) into “what must be” (global
sacred law). Moksha
(liberation) is correspondingly reinterpreted not as metaphysical escape but
as the natural relief signal that follows resolved internal drag—successful
constraint satisfaction in a hostile environment. Priests arise not as
accidental corruption but as the system’s predictable interpreter/enforcer
class. This is
not an insult. It is a diagnosis of how mammalian collectives convert
engineering truths (artifice) into
binding governance. 1. The starting point: a mammal-level observation prior
to religion Begin
with a claim that requires no scripture, no metaphysics, and no gods: A whole (or quantum) functions only to the
degree its parts (as sub-events) function. This is not
philosophy. It is mechanics. ·
A cart with one warped wheel does not become
“mostly mobile” by belief. ·
A bow with a cracked limb does not shoot
straighter because the archer prays. ·
A village whose storehouse leaks does not survive
winter by reciting hymns to grain. The whole
is not an ornament placed atop parts. The whole is the coordinated
execution of parts. From this
follows a second observation, equally pre-religious: Functional completion in an unpredictable, violent
world produces release (relief). When the
system stops bleeding energy into internal mismatch, it experiences what is
called freedom—not freedom-from-law, but freedom-as-coherence: the
reduction of internal drag that permits effective @c interaction with
external randomness. Smart
operators of the ancient world observed, indeed every smart human of today
observes coherence → capability → relief. Later systems
administrators (i.e. priests) universalised this
observation and divinised it. 2. Translate the observation into procedural terms Let’s
formalise without mysticism. ·
A token = any bounded system-node that
maintains identity long enough to interact (a person, a clan, a chariot team,
a ritual unit, a mind, a state). ·
Internal drag = misalignment among subroutines:
contradiction, indecision, conflict of aims, faulty parts, leakage,
hesitation, friction, self-sabotage. ·
Functional perfection
(completion) = sufficient internal coherence that the token executes its role
with zero internal loss. Now the
proposition becomes crisp: In a
stochastic environment, only coherent tokens (hence quanta = wholes) can enact reliable (meaning
certain) behaviour; reliable behaviour yields survival value;
survival value produces relief. This is
the non-religious skeleton behind “do your best.” 3. “Do your best” as the
original control heuristic “Do your best” is not
first a moral command. It is a control heuristic discovered by natural
selection: ·
Groups that coordinate (i.e. are ‘fitter’) outperform groups that diffuse. ·
Individuals who complete tasks outperform
individuals who start and abandon them. ·
Systems that reduce internal contradiction can
track the external world more effectively. Best
effort is simply the behavioural expression of internal
coherence. And in a
harsh, unpredictable, competitive world, “best effort” cannot remain optional for long. Optional rules do
not scale. They are advisory. They compete with impulse, fatigue, envy, fear,
love and other short-term appetites. So the heuristic faces an
engineering problem: How do
you make a locally useful rule enforceable across a population over time? That
question births the next step. 4. The decisive move: universalise the heuristic into
cosmic law This is
the system-level, hence artificial innovation. A local
fact becomes a universal mandate: ·
From: “It’s advantageous if parts function well.” ·
To: “Reality is an order that requires
right functioning.” ·
From: “This practice works.” ·
To: “This practice is how the cosmos is kept in
balance.” The Vedic
concept of ṛta (as
order, truth, rightness, the “how-it-holds”) becomes the perfect vessel for
this upgrade because it can mean—depending on context—natural regularity,
moral rightness, ritual correctness, social trustworthiness, oath-keeping,
and cosmic stability. It is an expandable container. In
procedural terms, ṛta becomes the global
constraint-set, and “do your best” becomes compliance with reality itself. This is
not a metaphysical discovery so much as a governance strategy: Turn
“best practice” into “ontology.” 5. Divinisation: adding the non-negotiable authority
wrapper Once a
rule is universalised, it still faces a second engineering problem: Universal
rules still allow divergence unless divergence is costly. Cost must
be externalised beyond immediate consequences. Humans will gamble. They will
defect if they think the odds favour them. Divinisation supplies
an authority wrapper that makes the rule non-optional: ·
The rule is no longer “ours.” It is “Reality’s.” ·
The rule is no longer local. It is “cosmic.” ·
The penalty is no longer a practical consequence.
It is “trans-temporal.” This is
the core control mechanism: If God
says so, the rule cannot be negotiated. Bluntly
spoken: “God” functions as the seal on the rule. Not necessarily
a lie. Not necessarily cynicism. Simply: a compliance amplifier. 6. The (human mammal’s)
invention of infinite sanction The
strongest enforcement mechanism is not physical punishment (which is costly
to administer) but internalised (deterrent
implant) punishment, maintained by imagination
and fear. “Break it
and suffer (i.e. be reborn) eternally”
is an unbeatable governance weapon because it: 1. scales
without police, 2. persists without
supervision, 3. colonises
the private mind, 4. makes
dissent identical with self-harm. Once
infinite sanction exists, the system becomes self-sustaining: it can run on
the user’s own anxiety. In modern
language: humans have built a self-enforcing control architecture. This is
the point where “Veda as lived guidance” becomes “Veda as AI
governance”—not silicon, but symbolic. 7. The rise of interpreter and enforcer start-ups:
priesthood as the system’s natural layer A universal,
sacred, abstract rule-set creates an immediate
technical demand: Someone
must interpret it. Because: ·
rules conflict, ·
exceptions arise, ·
contexts change, ·
the text is ambiguous, ·
and the world is noisy. Hence the
birth of the interpreter class: priests, ritual specialists, jurists,
exegetes, assistants, “those who know.” This is
not necessarily corruption. It is functional. Every
large rule system generates: ·
compilers (those who translate ideal
rule into operational practice), ·
debuggers (those who diagnose failure
and prescribe repair), ·
auditors (those who monitor
compliance), ·
enforcers (those who penalise
deviation), ·
trainers (those who socialise
novices into the rule). ·
assistants (those who ‘lead’, an AI bot) Once such
a class exists, self-interest appears automatically and necessarily. That is
not moral failure. It is the standard behaviour of a subsystem that controls
access to a resource required for its survival—here, the resource is legitimacy
and salvation and social permission. Hence: Priesthood
is not the parasite on the system. 8. The Veda as “AI”: what
the analogy precisely means (and does not mean) Calling
religion “AI” can be
sloppy if it suggests literal computation. The more claim is: A Guide & Control AI is any human artifice rather than natural generated system that: 1. encodes
behavioural rules, 2. generalises
them beyond local cases, 3. generates
prescriptions for action, 4. predicts
and penalises divergence, 5. recruits operators and interpreters, 6. perpetuates
itself across generations. By that
definition, the Vedic complex qualifies: ·
It encodes human norms (ritual, speech,
social order, purity, duty). ·
It generalises them into cosmic order (ṛta, dharma). ·
It prescribes action (yajña,
vrata, truthfulness, right conduct). ·
It penalises divergence (sin, pollution, karmic
residue, bad rebirth, cosmic disorder, social exclusion). ·
It installs operators (priests, teachers,
lineages). ·
It perpetuates itself (education, initiation,
memorisation, social embedding). It is “AI” in the
sense of artificial governance intelligence: an externalised cognitive
control system that shapes behaviour at scale. Not
supernatural. Not necessarily malicious. Simply: engineered. 9. Reframing moksha: release
as the native reward signal of coherence Now we
return to the second axis: moksha as freedom. The basic
(i.e. naturally observed) reinterpretation is: Release is not a
theological gift. When a
system resolves internal drag, it experiences relief. This relief reinforces
the behaviours that produced coherence. ·
The worker finishes the task: relief. ·
The mind resolves a contradiction: relief. ·
The body heals a wound: relief. ·
The tribe makes it through winter: relief. Moksha, in this
frame, is the maximised form of that relief: the stable reduction of internal
friction so that the token can function cleanly, indeed ‘on standby’ (i.e. Nirvana 1). The (essentially failed because it obviates the invariant
emergence structure)) religious
system (i.e. the end of Veda) then
captures this natural reward signal and declares: This relief is the
highest goal. This is
exactly what a control system does: it binds the organism’s intrinsic reward
mechanism to the system’s prescribed behaviours. 10. ṛta as the
divinised version of a correct engineering claim Now we
can re-interpret the earlier “local coherence” proposition directly within
your new thesis: ·
The correct engineering claim: ·
The useful governance translation: ·
The sacred universalisation: Thus ṛta becomes
a grand, cosmic “because” that makes the control code feel inevitable. Again,
bluntly stated: ṛta is the
promotion of functional coherence into metaphysical law, so deviation can be
treated as cosmic sabotage. 11. Examples across domains: the same structure repeats To show
this is not a Vedic peculiarity but a general mechanism, consider parallel
“Guide & Control” systems. 11.1 Traffic code ·
Base observation: uncoordinated driving kills. ·
Rule system: signals, right-of-way, speed limits. ·
Universalisation: “this is the law.” ·
Enforcement: police, courts. ·
Internalisation: fear of fines, fear of guilt. No one
calls it sacred, but structurally it is identical: a public rule-set that suppresses divergence for collective
viability. 11.2 Military discipline ·
Base observation: a unit fails if parts act
independently. ·
Rule: chain of command, drills, uniform
behaviour. ·
Sanction: punishment, discharge, death in combat. ·
Interpreter/enforcer class: officers, NCOs. Again:
coherent parts → functional whole. 11.3 Corporate compliance ·
Base observation: unregulated behaviour creates
risk. ·
Rule: policies, audits, HR codes. ·
Sanction: termination, lawsuits. ·
Interpreter class: legal, compliance officers. The
pattern is universal because it is an engineering truth of collective
systems. Religion
is simply the version that used cosmic language and eternal penalty
because those scale best in pre-modern (read: infantile, i.e. dependents) enforcement
environments. 12. Why this system persists: its outputs are real A key
point: our understanding does not require “religion is false” as a claim. It
only requires: The
system persists because it produces workable coordination. Even if
it is artificial, it can still stabilise: ·
trust, ·
long-term planning, ·
sexual regulation, ·
resource distribution, ·
conflict limitation, ·
shared identity. So the view of mature
observation is not “religion is stupid.” It is: Religion
is a high-power social technology built from true observations, amplified by
cosmic authority, and maintained by institutional operators. A hammer
is artificial. It still works. 13. Failure modes: where the AI becomes
rigid, predatory, or self-referential Every control
system drifts toward self-preservation. This and hereditary system control
ownership yields predictable failure modes: 1. Rule
worship: The code becomes the goal; the system forgets why the
rule existed. 2. Penalty
inflation: Sanctions grow because they are effective. 3. Interpreter
capture: The enforcer class, for instance, the Brahmin caste,
or any self-proclaimed ‘royal’ lineage, optimises for itself. 4. Anti-debugging: Dissent
is labelled heresy rather than treated as signal. 5. Model
ossification: The system denies new data to preserve authority. Again:
not moral outrage—just system dynamics. 14. The clinical conclusion The final
claim, in the driest possible compression, is: 1. Humans
observed that coherence yields functional power and relief. 2. They
universalised this as “cosmic order” (ṛta). 3. They
divinised it to prevent divergence. 4. They
attached infinite sanction to make compliance self-enforcing. 5. They
generated an interpreter/enforcer class (priesthood, aristocracy) as
middleware. 6. The
resulting structure is an early AI (-like) Guide & Control system: human-built, adaptive,
self-maintaining. Not
divine word. Artificial Gods &
Machine-Speed Law Religion, Governance &
Artificial Intelligence From natural
intelligence to deified artificial regulation |