There is this world
Behind Me
Unheard, Unseen, Unknown.
And in front of me
Heard, Seen, Known.
Of all the ants etched on the stones
Of all the shells embedded in
Black Green
Brown Moist
Of the cobwebs
Of the beach sand
Of the shoots
Of the roots
Sands of time
Washed ashore
On the beach of life
Memories galore !
Be myself
Be myself
Sober & Calm
Unheard, Unseen, Unknown.
Sedation of Peace
Seduction of loneliness
Unheard, Unseen, Unknown.
--Revdanda Beach, 15th November,2009.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Root Cause : The lovely marital bliss !
One of the most fascinating inventions in the history of mankind – and holds true for the future as well – is marriage. How wonderful that two people come together and decide that for the rest of their lives they will live happily ever after. And no matter what, they would always be together – through thick and thin. People go for renewal of their marital vows to keep their love alive!
So, love and marriage seem to have the power to turnaround the lives of woebegone people. Love makes live exciting, brings in an element of excitement into life. While marriage makes the lives of people complete and fulfilling. Let’s dissect the underwritings of marriage. But because no marriage is complete without love, we start with love and then move onto marriage.
Love, as per common sense, is that feeling when an individual feels attracted towards another individual. And the feeling is very different. You feel like spending more time with each other. You start sharing interests, start accommodating your schedules, start doing sweet nothings and what not. And then later on you start feeling the need of being touchy and then things progress, and if other things fit well, you marry.
But why does love happen only after a certain age? And that age inadvertently is once adolescence kicks in. So, there is a clear connection between the biological clock and the cycle of love. Hormones responsible for development of secondary sexual characteristics start getting produced and released within the body by adolescence. And these changes influence our thoughts. It’s a classic example of the body influencing the mind. So suddenly the girl about whom you had nothing, or put differently you were not capable of having anything about her, suddenly looks attractive. You find the boy with whom you used to share all your playtime secrets behaves differently now. His accidental rub across your arm feels odd enough to be registered.
Hence, love is the body’s response to the hormones. It has got nothing to do with the ‘likable quotient’ of the other person. But then why does not everyone fall in love with everybody else? That’s where economics comes in. The more the choice of similar products a consumer has, (s)he will prefer buying the one which is the best amongst the available. Hence, as the number of attractive people around you increases, you become selective in choosing your lover. It’s like you are in a forest on a hunger trip. In the morning you find just apples around, and to kill your hunger you eat the apples. But in the evening you find apples, peaches, oranges, bananas and other fruits. Will you still pick up apples? Only if you personally find apple the best amongst the available, otherwise you will shift to some other fruit.
Hence, ‘love’ will happen to all humans. All humans will respond to the chemical changes in the body, except in the case wherein the body functions otherwise. But what about other living organisms? What about animals? Well, they also follow the same cycle.
So, here an important concept of similarities between a man and an animal is taking shape. The saying goes that ‘Man is a Social Animal’. But animals too are social. Dogs are social – they live in their own society, have families, live in groups, have territories and their societies have all characteristics similar to those of a human society. Mosquitoes have their own societies. So do cockroaches. And so do elephants. So, animals too are social. Not in the sense that they socialize like humans do, but in their own way.
Hence, Man is an Animal, without the unnecessary word ‘social’.
Now, animals have 3 basic needs:
Nutrition for existence
Security
Procreation
Nutrition includes food and water, required for sustaining life. Security includes shelter and protection from other animals and weather, required for protecting life. Procreation includes reproduction cycles, required for continuation of the life of a species. Summed up, all three are – Sustain, Protect & Continue.
Now, as already proved that Man is an Animal, he also acts in the same way. He tries to fulfill his 3 basic needs. Love, falls in the 3rd category.
As already covered, once things move ahead in love, people become touchy. And express love in a different way. But they are ultimately engaging in an act of satisfying their 3rd desire. Now, as the human society evolved, things became complex. Lot of men would have left women after procreating with them, leaving them in the lurch with the additional responsibility of children. Because the primitive man was the one who used to go hunting around for food, it would have been difficult for a primitive woman to sustain herself without the help of a man. So ease this ‘running away’ and to help women, marriage would have been invented. To make sure that the man pays attention to his off springs as well, to ensure that he takes care of the woman as well.
Also, to give an individual the right to procreate, marriage was a license. It was a license to procreate; it was a license to satisfy the third desire.
The law of diminishing returns applies to love as well. After, say 7 years – famously labeled as the 7 year itch, a girl starts to lose interest in her partner. She would then look for a different excitement in her life. That is, she would look for a different partner. And then again the cycle starts.
Hence, marriage is nothing but a cloak under the garb of which human’s act like who they are – animals. And love is nothing but a reaction of the body to the hormones being secreted or produced.
People say that you need to be in touch with your partner for keeping alive. But actually, if you are not in regular touch – say like in a distance marriage – you are not physically present with your partner, and hence the 3rd desire does not get satisfied as frequently as you would want to, and then the sourness starts in the relationship. And you start looking at other prospective partners. So again, physical proximity is what really matters. Secondly, love always happens when there is some attraction between the two partners. Attraction in the form of physical attraction – based on looks and appearances. Hence, again, physical form presides over any other factors. In cases where two people marry without knowing each other, like in lot of backwardly traditional Indian families, the couple comes together just to start a family. And hence, the question of love does not even arise in this case.
So, Love = Chemistry + Physics+ Biology.
And, Marriage = License to engage in Love.
Love starts when the hormones kick in, takes the form of the physics of love and ends with the biological birth of an offspring.
So, love is all science.
In fact, ‘love’ is all science.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Root Cause : Godly Genesis.
Of all the things and ideas created by the human kind, one of the most intriguing and comical is that which relates to 'some invisible power overseeing the worldly affairs' - God. And the intensity with which we devote our time and energies towards pleasing 'God' is unsurpassable. Only if humans could be more rational.
There exists this whole business of God, and has a universal existence. Humans definitely make very good story tellers. And all those wonderful 'stories' and 'tales' - they definitely make up for the lack of rationality.
Let's try to unravel as to why 'God' exists and what makes it all the more popular. Humans cannot understand and explain each and every phenomenon that happens. There are probably more things unexplained than explained. The concept of 'God' definitely exists since thousands of years. So the origins lie in the primitive man's life. The primitive man did not have an understanding of things, an understanding which exists at this point of time. They did not understand why thunderbolts happened. They did not understand why it rained. And they did not know why the Sun disappeared in the evening.
Also, as in any other species of living beings, everyone loves power. Everyone likes to be on the top, and to be in control. So one fine day, this smart dude walks straight in the midst his people, and proclaims that there is this invisible, untouchable and all-encompassing force which makes things happen. And this dude was chosen by that all-encompassing force to spread this message to all the people.
And lo behold, 'God' was born ! What an uneventful birth. No pangs and no contractions ! And his people were very much in awe of this dude, the chosen one. And the dude gets what he wants. He wanted power. And power he got. He then got all the food he could ever strut down his throat in a lifetime. He got all things set up for himself. And what more, he had to be pleased. Because if he were not, then the 'Gods' would get angry - and would destroy his people's cattle,food, animals - in short, their world. So he gets more - even the dudettes ! And what a merry making life it would have been !
And then this folklore spread out, and more stories were woven, more characters incorporated, complex plots laid out. And thus was created a perfect pot-boiler. The most extravagant sitcom ever created.
Now the serious part of it. Over time, as human societies became more complex, this belief of an overpowering God transformed into somebody who helped them. Somebody who guided them about their Karma and about their purpose. And who does not like the feeling of being protected. The feeling of somebody being there - ready to help you at one chant of a mantra. All of insecurities were off-loaded onto the sturdy shoulders of God. Whatever happened, whether good or bad, whether right or wrong, God was responsible for it all.
God must be having a tough time up there. Billions of people to look after. Trillions of their problems. And then to right every wrong. To have answers ready for every question. That primitive dude had, unknowingly, created a super computer. All questions answered at a whisper. Parallel grid computing at it's marvel.
And add to it the vagaries of the human species with newly acquired sign and language skills. God now had a language of his own. God spoke in a language which his people created. And with interactions amongst different races of humans increasing, the inevitable happened - the clashes of the civilizations. More aptly, the clashes of the Gods!
We shrug off our responsibilities by putting everything at the feet of 'God'. We are afraid whether what we are doing is going to bear fruits or not. We want somebody to take care of our tensions, of our rights and wrongs. Of us. We don't want accountability. The full on liability is on God. If anything goes wrong, it's God. But if anything goes right, it's us. God is a folly. It's a concept.
The bare truths of life are simple and straightforward. Every living being need just these - food, sleep, mate. Any thing above it is just gloss. Animals don't go around collecting stuff over their lifetimes. That is not to deride the achievements of the human kind. But if God were to exist, if that were to be a truth, his presence would have been acknowledged by all - by all living beings.
The three bare necessities - food, sleep, mate - are common to animals and humans alike. The argument that humans are of a higher order and hence only they are able to understand God is not even half intelligent.
Just to prove a point, consider the cases wherein 'unacceptable' things have been committed by religious people. There was this Buddhist monastery in the US, where lot of objectionable content was found. A nun from Kerala put allegations of immoral behaviour on a Father. A Hindu swami engaging in acts in Gujarat. So, despite the strictness a religion wants to impose on people, the truth raises it's head. And even 'godly' people engage in acts of truth !
One more thing that definitely would have contributed towards the concept of God would have been 'erring' humans. That is, imagine the original dude, who was the chosen one, asking for a dudette who is a mate of some other dude. Now this dude gets cross with the chosen one. Because the chosen one 'stole' his mate. So to put a hold to such 'erring humans', lot of such 'rules' have been included in the religious books.
For example, the avoidable topic of incest. Imagine the horror of a father who finds his son crossing his path with his mother ! And all that finds a place in the teachings of religion. So all things religious have been ultimately invented by man.
And man being such a foolish species, fights over some 'God' being more 'godlier' than another god. His God being more 'purer' than the other God !
So stop accepting what is put onto you. Think rationally. Use brains. And for the question 'What is the purpose of life ?' - well, there is none. You are here for a reason beyond your control. You won't be here for a reason beyond your understanding. With nothing concrete to begin with, and with even less to end with, do you still need a purpose ?
But yes, a lot of things preached by saints are good - they definitely are worth practicing in life - but not worth their salt if attributed to God.
God. It's a book without an author. It's a chapter without the concrete paragraph's. It's a paragraph with blurred sentences. And a sentence with missing dots.
Get a life. Write your own chapter.
There exists this whole business of God, and has a universal existence. Humans definitely make very good story tellers. And all those wonderful 'stories' and 'tales' - they definitely make up for the lack of rationality.
Let's try to unravel as to why 'God' exists and what makes it all the more popular. Humans cannot understand and explain each and every phenomenon that happens. There are probably more things unexplained than explained. The concept of 'God' definitely exists since thousands of years. So the origins lie in the primitive man's life. The primitive man did not have an understanding of things, an understanding which exists at this point of time. They did not understand why thunderbolts happened. They did not understand why it rained. And they did not know why the Sun disappeared in the evening.
Also, as in any other species of living beings, everyone loves power. Everyone likes to be on the top, and to be in control. So one fine day, this smart dude walks straight in the midst his people, and proclaims that there is this invisible, untouchable and all-encompassing force which makes things happen. And this dude was chosen by that all-encompassing force to spread this message to all the people.
And lo behold, 'God' was born ! What an uneventful birth. No pangs and no contractions ! And his people were very much in awe of this dude, the chosen one. And the dude gets what he wants. He wanted power. And power he got. He then got all the food he could ever strut down his throat in a lifetime. He got all things set up for himself. And what more, he had to be pleased. Because if he were not, then the 'Gods' would get angry - and would destroy his people's cattle,food, animals - in short, their world. So he gets more - even the dudettes ! And what a merry making life it would have been !
And then this folklore spread out, and more stories were woven, more characters incorporated, complex plots laid out. And thus was created a perfect pot-boiler. The most extravagant sitcom ever created.
Now the serious part of it. Over time, as human societies became more complex, this belief of an overpowering God transformed into somebody who helped them. Somebody who guided them about their Karma and about their purpose. And who does not like the feeling of being protected. The feeling of somebody being there - ready to help you at one chant of a mantra. All of insecurities were off-loaded onto the sturdy shoulders of God. Whatever happened, whether good or bad, whether right or wrong, God was responsible for it all.
God must be having a tough time up there. Billions of people to look after. Trillions of their problems. And then to right every wrong. To have answers ready for every question. That primitive dude had, unknowingly, created a super computer. All questions answered at a whisper. Parallel grid computing at it's marvel.
And add to it the vagaries of the human species with newly acquired sign and language skills. God now had a language of his own. God spoke in a language which his people created. And with interactions amongst different races of humans increasing, the inevitable happened - the clashes of the civilizations. More aptly, the clashes of the Gods!
We shrug off our responsibilities by putting everything at the feet of 'God'. We are afraid whether what we are doing is going to bear fruits or not. We want somebody to take care of our tensions, of our rights and wrongs. Of us. We don't want accountability. The full on liability is on God. If anything goes wrong, it's God. But if anything goes right, it's us. God is a folly. It's a concept.
The bare truths of life are simple and straightforward. Every living being need just these - food, sleep, mate. Any thing above it is just gloss. Animals don't go around collecting stuff over their lifetimes. That is not to deride the achievements of the human kind. But if God were to exist, if that were to be a truth, his presence would have been acknowledged by all - by all living beings.
The three bare necessities - food, sleep, mate - are common to animals and humans alike. The argument that humans are of a higher order and hence only they are able to understand God is not even half intelligent.
Just to prove a point, consider the cases wherein 'unacceptable' things have been committed by religious people. There was this Buddhist monastery in the US, where lot of objectionable content was found. A nun from Kerala put allegations of immoral behaviour on a Father. A Hindu swami engaging in acts in Gujarat. So, despite the strictness a religion wants to impose on people, the truth raises it's head. And even 'godly' people engage in acts of truth !
One more thing that definitely would have contributed towards the concept of God would have been 'erring' humans. That is, imagine the original dude, who was the chosen one, asking for a dudette who is a mate of some other dude. Now this dude gets cross with the chosen one. Because the chosen one 'stole' his mate. So to put a hold to such 'erring humans', lot of such 'rules' have been included in the religious books.
For example, the avoidable topic of incest. Imagine the horror of a father who finds his son crossing his path with his mother ! And all that finds a place in the teachings of religion. So all things religious have been ultimately invented by man.
And man being such a foolish species, fights over some 'God' being more 'godlier' than another god. His God being more 'purer' than the other God !
So stop accepting what is put onto you. Think rationally. Use brains. And for the question 'What is the purpose of life ?' - well, there is none. You are here for a reason beyond your control. You won't be here for a reason beyond your understanding. With nothing concrete to begin with, and with even less to end with, do you still need a purpose ?
But yes, a lot of things preached by saints are good - they definitely are worth practicing in life - but not worth their salt if attributed to God.
God. It's a book without an author. It's a chapter without the concrete paragraph's. It's a paragraph with blurred sentences. And a sentence with missing dots.
Get a life. Write your own chapter.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Root Cause : Teaching v/s Imposing.
What constitutes teaching ? And when does teaching transform into imposing ?
The Free Dictionary defines 'Teaching' and 'Imposing' as :
teach·ing
n.
1. The act, practice, occupation, or profession of a teacher.
2.
a. Something taught.
b. A precept or doctrine. Often used in the plural: the teachings of Buddha.
adj.
1. Of, involving, or used for teaching: teaching materials; teaching methods.
2. Working as a teacher or in teaching: teaching assistants.
im·pos·ing
adj.
Impressive, as by virtue of size, bearing, or power: the monarch's imposing presence.
Seems as if there exists a fine line between teaching and imposing. But it is not. When a teacher teaches or tells a pupil that Hitler was cruel, is the teacher not imposing views on the pupil. After all, there must be at least some one in the whole world who would believe that Hitler was not cruel.
When the United States of America labels North Korea ( DPRK ) as a 'Rogue' and 'Failed' state, is it not imposing it's views on the whole world ?
The Church earlier believed that the Earth is at the center of the Universe. And this taught to students. Then came Gallileo, who said that the Earth is not at the center of the Universe. So until Gallileo's point was taken, view of Earth being at the center was imposed on others. Similary, when Gallileo's point was accepted, his view was also imposed that Earth is not at the center of the Universe.
But then what do we do ? Do we have an option ? Seem's not. Are you and me preparing for the Moon to check whether there is relatively less gravity there, as claimed by books and scientists ?
Are we going to open up the computer to check whether it is really the processor which does the computing or is it the Monitor ?
So there is a grey shade between teaching and imposing. And then there is a limit as to what we can verify and what we can not.
So whether it is teaching or imposing, accept it folks, atleast for the time being !
And this leads to an even more conclusion. That nothing in this world, nothing, is original. Everything borrows at least something from the already created.
Suppose you decide to start to all over from scratch. With your own language, dialect, numerical systems, signs, culture etc, you decide to create something original. But you fell in the trap when you decided that your 'language' would be different from the other languages which already exist. That is, even if your language is completely different from any other, you made a conscious effort to not borrow from any language. And while doing so, you relied on the past. You relied on something which already was there. And hence your language, dialect, numerical systems, signs, culture etc would not be original.
None of us will ever get a chance to be original. Only the first human on Earth had a chance to be original. But human's, say scientists, evolved from the monkeys - and this might be an imposition as well. So the first ever chance to be original was available to only the first ever living organism. And whether that was Earth or some other piece of object, can never be found out.
So sit back and enjoy your so called 'originality' and 'creative' juices !
Friday, March 20, 2009
Root Cause : Liberation.
The greatest liberation for mankind,
would be to be free from the cycles of life.
To be free from desires of the mind.
To be free from hunger of the stomach.
To be free from the thirst of the throat.
To be free from the pain of the neck.
To be free from the bed of love.
To be free from the traps of hate.
To be free from desires of the mind.
To be free from the desire to be free.
To be free from the desire to be free.
A man would be free from the desire to be free,
when he is unbound by all, bound by none.
A man would be free from the desire to be free,
only when all desires die.
would be to be free from the cycles of life.
To be free from desires of the mind.
To be free from hunger of the stomach.
To be free from the thirst of the throat.
To be free from the pain of the neck.
To be free from the bed of love.
To be free from the traps of hate.
To be free from desires of the mind.
To be free from the desire to be free.
To be free from the desire to be free.
A man would be free from the desire to be free,
when he is unbound by all, bound by none.
A man would be free from the desire to be free,
only when all desires die.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Root Cause : Queer Observations.
1. Why does Music make us happy ?
Because it distracts us from our problems, and guides our thoughts towards an altogether different living field. It helps us in running away - not solving them.
2. Why is God on the top ?
Upperwaale - the one who is above all, and in the heavens. Is being on ground insulting ? Why is he only in the sky, why not in the water, on the earth, in the trees, with the farms ?
3. Why does the map always show America on the left, and Japan on the right ?
America is indeed not very far away from Japan, unlike as depicted in maps. On paper, when representing the oblong world, something has to be on the left, but why only America ?
4. Why touch feet of elders for blessings ?
We always respect an individual for his/her thoughts. All that originates in the brain. Then why touch the feet ? Why not the head ? Because we ultimately are seeking good will and blessings of them, which again would originate only in the mind.
5. My religion is the best. But why ?
If any other religion has got a different view-point than that of mine, then we are loggerheads. Why ? Can the same thing be not seen from different angles ? Why is it always 'Either - Or', rather than 'And'. I prefer the 'Neither - Nor'.
6. My country is the most beautiful. Is it ?
My country being beautiful implies your country is not it's worth. After all, it's just a piece of land. Of course with lots of emotional baggage.
7. Human beings need to be saved at all costs.
Why is the human being above all ? Is human more important than the beetle on the leaf, or than the lizard on the wall ? We are just a micro-dot in the universe. We exaggerate our existence.
Because it distracts us from our problems, and guides our thoughts towards an altogether different living field. It helps us in running away - not solving them.
2. Why is God on the top ?
Upperwaale - the one who is above all, and in the heavens. Is being on ground insulting ? Why is he only in the sky, why not in the water, on the earth, in the trees, with the farms ?
3. Why does the map always show America on the left, and Japan on the right ?
America is indeed not very far away from Japan, unlike as depicted in maps. On paper, when representing the oblong world, something has to be on the left, but why only America ?
4. Why touch feet of elders for blessings ?
We always respect an individual for his/her thoughts. All that originates in the brain. Then why touch the feet ? Why not the head ? Because we ultimately are seeking good will and blessings of them, which again would originate only in the mind.
5. My religion is the best. But why ?
If any other religion has got a different view-point than that of mine, then we are loggerheads. Why ? Can the same thing be not seen from different angles ? Why is it always 'Either - Or', rather than 'And'. I prefer the 'Neither - Nor'.
6. My country is the most beautiful. Is it ?
My country being beautiful implies your country is not it's worth. After all, it's just a piece of land. Of course with lots of emotional baggage.
7. Human beings need to be saved at all costs.
Why is the human being above all ? Is human more important than the beetle on the leaf, or than the lizard on the wall ? We are just a micro-dot in the universe. We exaggerate our existence.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Root Cause : Flexible Morality.
Is morality flexible ? Or is it rigid ? Does the one who takes a moral stand, always stand by it ? How long or how far should or would one go to adhere to his moral stand ? Let's explore.
All of us, some time or other, take moral stands about issues. We proclaim that we take such a stance because it is the right thing to do so. Because by doing this, we are preventing the wrong from spreading. For example, we say that we would use water judiciously. We would not waste it. And we will take utmost care to use only the required minimum quantity. That's a moral stand. We don't want to waste water. We want to save it for fellow human beings. But given a situation, wherein you were not able to take a bath for 10 days, because you went on a trip to a jungle, living on the bare minimum, would you not gorge on the abundance of water and make sure you scrub every inch of your skin once you get back home? Where then is the moral stance ?
Milk revolution changed things in India. It made healthy drinking for the poor a possibility. And also made torture a reality for cows, buffaloes, goats etc. They are being artificially impregnated, so that they give birth to more off-springs, and give milk continuously. Would I stop drinking milk ? I want to, but have not as of now.
I myself have take a stance of acting like a civilized man, by taking steps to reduce pollution and negative environmental impacts. Likewise, I do whatever I can for the same. Like switching off electronic devices when not required. Using fluorescent tubes instead of regular bulbs. But I light fire-crackers during festivals. And by doing that I pollute the environment - air and noise pollution. So where is my moral stand ? Would I not bathe with warm water if it is freezing outside ? Would I sacrifice taking a bath for the whole of my life, because taking bath wastes water ? No.
Hence, this shows that moral stands are adhered to only until it suits the follower. Only until it is comfortable to follow one. And only until, it does not interfere with one's needs.
Morality also takes a backseat when two or more moral stands collide. For example, you are given an option of saving either of the two : a bucket full of clean water and the life of a man. Whom would you save ? Of course the life of the man. Right ? Why ? Because that is more 'important'. Let's make it more complex. The man, whose life is in question, is a hardened criminal and has butchered more than a thousand people, and has committed deplorable crimes. Now whom would you save ? Still the man ? What if the water bucket is replaced by a young child ? Now whom would you save ?
So, morality is also dependent on one's assessment of the order of 'importance' of things. As it is clear from the above examples, morality is not inflexible. It is flexible. Flexible to one's own comfort. It is, hence, inversely proportional to the rigidity of the need. If the need is more rigid, like in taking bath, moral stand of not wasting water will become 'un-rigid' i.e. flexible. If the need is 'un-rigid', like feeding stray animals from the left-over at home, moral stands will be in-flexible, that is we will follow them.
Mathematically,
In-flexible Need => Flexible Morality, and
Flexible Need => In-flexible Morality
Hence, Morality and Needs are inversely proportional.
All of us, some time or other, take moral stands about issues. We proclaim that we take such a stance because it is the right thing to do so. Because by doing this, we are preventing the wrong from spreading. For example, we say that we would use water judiciously. We would not waste it. And we will take utmost care to use only the required minimum quantity. That's a moral stand. We don't want to waste water. We want to save it for fellow human beings. But given a situation, wherein you were not able to take a bath for 10 days, because you went on a trip to a jungle, living on the bare minimum, would you not gorge on the abundance of water and make sure you scrub every inch of your skin once you get back home? Where then is the moral stance ?
Milk revolution changed things in India. It made healthy drinking for the poor a possibility. And also made torture a reality for cows, buffaloes, goats etc. They are being artificially impregnated, so that they give birth to more off-springs, and give milk continuously. Would I stop drinking milk ? I want to, but have not as of now.
I myself have take a stance of acting like a civilized man, by taking steps to reduce pollution and negative environmental impacts. Likewise, I do whatever I can for the same. Like switching off electronic devices when not required. Using fluorescent tubes instead of regular bulbs. But I light fire-crackers during festivals. And by doing that I pollute the environment - air and noise pollution. So where is my moral stand ? Would I not bathe with warm water if it is freezing outside ? Would I sacrifice taking a bath for the whole of my life, because taking bath wastes water ? No.
Hence, this shows that moral stands are adhered to only until it suits the follower. Only until it is comfortable to follow one. And only until, it does not interfere with one's needs.
Morality also takes a backseat when two or more moral stands collide. For example, you are given an option of saving either of the two : a bucket full of clean water and the life of a man. Whom would you save ? Of course the life of the man. Right ? Why ? Because that is more 'important'. Let's make it more complex. The man, whose life is in question, is a hardened criminal and has butchered more than a thousand people, and has committed deplorable crimes. Now whom would you save ? Still the man ? What if the water bucket is replaced by a young child ? Now whom would you save ?
So, morality is also dependent on one's assessment of the order of 'importance' of things. As it is clear from the above examples, morality is not inflexible. It is flexible. Flexible to one's own comfort. It is, hence, inversely proportional to the rigidity of the need. If the need is more rigid, like in taking bath, moral stand of not wasting water will become 'un-rigid' i.e. flexible. If the need is 'un-rigid', like feeding stray animals from the left-over at home, moral stands will be in-flexible, that is we will follow them.
Mathematically,
In-flexible Need => Flexible Morality, and
Flexible Need => In-flexible Morality
Hence, Morality and Needs are inversely proportional.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Root Cause : Will HAMAS cease to exist ?
Harakat Al Muqawama Al Islamiyya - HAMAS, has been under seige and attack by the Israelis. Scores of people have been killed, the latest count saying around 1300, with half of them being civilians - including hundereds of children and women. Even an U.N. centre was not spared in Gaza, with the Israeli spokesperson saying fire was returned from militants hiding in there.
A profound analysis would unravel things, which always have been made murkier by the media - by hiding them and clouding them with suppression and tampering with them.
Just because Israel has an army of its own, whatever acts of atrocities it commits become acts of 'protection' and 'courage'. Palestine does not have an army of its own - as West Bank is ruled by Fatah, and Gaza by Hamas - two opposing parties - and hence do not have the political will to come together and work on critical issues.
There have been reports that Israel was the provocateur in this case - just like it was in the war with Syria for Golan Heights. The six month truce between Hamas and Israel ended - and Israel got a legitimate right for attacking Palestinians.
But is it really having an impact on Hamas ? No. Here are the reasons. Hamas has got two leadership centres - one in Damascus, Syria and the other in Gaza. The external leadership - in Damascus, is the Majlis al-Shura, which is the consultative concil and oversees all major decisions and activities. The internal leadership oversees daily activities, day to day execution, disbursement of funds and other operational exercises.
Hence, despite the internal leadership being mauled, the external one is safe and sound, and will strike back.
Also, Hamas is not just a 'military organization', as branded by Western media. It has got 3 wings - Political, Military & Social. The social wing - also called Dawa - engages in community welfare, establishing schools, sports clubs, hospitals etc. Though the acts of the military wing of Hamas - Qassam Brigaes is despisable, Hamas banks on the ingrained thought of dispossesion in the Palestinian mentality. And as long as something is embedded in the psyche of the common people, its difficult to change or remove it by acts of suppression.
Hence, Hamas, more than being an organization, is an ideology. It offers a platform for the common people to fight for their just cause. A banana republic like Israel keeps on committing acts of violence against innocent Palestinians, and still the U.N. and saviour-of-all U.S. just sit ducks. U.S. does not condemn Israel because of two reasons - a very stron AIPAC Israeli lobby in the U.S., and Israel being of strategic importance in midst of the Arab world.
And the U.N. does not act because its also another Banana organization. The media always portrays Israelis as the sufferers, and the Palestinians as the perpetrators. And it's all a web of deceit.
Hamas, inspite of all that is going on, and inspite of all that may come, will continue to exist. May it win in it's agenda for a Palestinian sovereign state. Ahem !
A profound analysis would unravel things, which always have been made murkier by the media - by hiding them and clouding them with suppression and tampering with them.
Just because Israel has an army of its own, whatever acts of atrocities it commits become acts of 'protection' and 'courage'. Palestine does not have an army of its own - as West Bank is ruled by Fatah, and Gaza by Hamas - two opposing parties - and hence do not have the political will to come together and work on critical issues.
There have been reports that Israel was the provocateur in this case - just like it was in the war with Syria for Golan Heights. The six month truce between Hamas and Israel ended - and Israel got a legitimate right for attacking Palestinians.
But is it really having an impact on Hamas ? No. Here are the reasons. Hamas has got two leadership centres - one in Damascus, Syria and the other in Gaza. The external leadership - in Damascus, is the Majlis al-Shura, which is the consultative concil and oversees all major decisions and activities. The internal leadership oversees daily activities, day to day execution, disbursement of funds and other operational exercises.
Hence, despite the internal leadership being mauled, the external one is safe and sound, and will strike back.
Also, Hamas is not just a 'military organization', as branded by Western media. It has got 3 wings - Political, Military & Social. The social wing - also called Dawa - engages in community welfare, establishing schools, sports clubs, hospitals etc. Though the acts of the military wing of Hamas - Qassam Brigaes is despisable, Hamas banks on the ingrained thought of dispossesion in the Palestinian mentality. And as long as something is embedded in the psyche of the common people, its difficult to change or remove it by acts of suppression.
Hence, Hamas, more than being an organization, is an ideology. It offers a platform for the common people to fight for their just cause. A banana republic like Israel keeps on committing acts of violence against innocent Palestinians, and still the U.N. and saviour-of-all U.S. just sit ducks. U.S. does not condemn Israel because of two reasons - a very stron AIPAC Israeli lobby in the U.S., and Israel being of strategic importance in midst of the Arab world.
And the U.N. does not act because its also another Banana organization. The media always portrays Israelis as the sufferers, and the Palestinians as the perpetrators. And it's all a web of deceit.
Hamas, inspite of all that is going on, and inspite of all that may come, will continue to exist. May it win in it's agenda for a Palestinian sovereign state. Ahem !
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Root Cause : Pets. Is it really Animal Love ?
'Oh, he is an avid animal lover. He has got 3 dogs, 2 cats and 2 squirrels'.
Or is it? Is he really an animal lover? At least it seems to the naive and gullible. In the human world, which gives you high prestige and adulation when you have more possessions, nothing is what it seems to be.
Humans tend to accumulate things. Carry them over all of their lives. Dragging them even to multiple lifetimes ! All he wants during the course of life is - possession. Possession of a car. Possession of a house. Possession of a mobile. And hence, possession of a pet. Yes. Pets for humans are nothing but possessions.
Pets indicate their high worth in the society. They are an indication of their money, of their fame, of their 'generosity'. People are proud of their pets, which again indicates that pets are nothing but booster shots - for the ego.
The more 'better bred' your dog is, the more command your respect among friends and the society. 'Look, he has got a Golden Retriever !' Pets never were an indication of the so-called-love towards animals.
Humans rearing animals in historic times was a different thing. They used them for helping them out in the farm, for milk, for traveling etc. And with prolonged contact, they became attached with them. But the primary purpose was - to use animals. Attachment with animals was a secondary product.
Organizations helping out animals with sheds, hospitals, free service etc are genuine. But those who say 'I own pets, because of my love towards animals', need to get a reality check done !
If they really loved them, they would leave them out in the open - nothing is better than that, feed them everyday, take care of their injuries and help them during distress. They would not confine them to their carpeted four walls.
Egoists - It's always about me, me and me. And my pets !
Or is it? Is he really an animal lover? At least it seems to the naive and gullible. In the human world, which gives you high prestige and adulation when you have more possessions, nothing is what it seems to be.
Humans tend to accumulate things. Carry them over all of their lives. Dragging them even to multiple lifetimes ! All he wants during the course of life is - possession. Possession of a car. Possession of a house. Possession of a mobile. And hence, possession of a pet. Yes. Pets for humans are nothing but possessions.
Pets indicate their high worth in the society. They are an indication of their money, of their fame, of their 'generosity'. People are proud of their pets, which again indicates that pets are nothing but booster shots - for the ego.
The more 'better bred' your dog is, the more command your respect among friends and the society. 'Look, he has got a Golden Retriever !' Pets never were an indication of the so-called-love towards animals.
Humans rearing animals in historic times was a different thing. They used them for helping them out in the farm, for milk, for traveling etc. And with prolonged contact, they became attached with them. But the primary purpose was - to use animals. Attachment with animals was a secondary product.
Organizations helping out animals with sheds, hospitals, free service etc are genuine. But those who say 'I own pets, because of my love towards animals', need to get a reality check done !
If they really loved them, they would leave them out in the open - nothing is better than that, feed them everyday, take care of their injuries and help them during distress. They would not confine them to their carpeted four walls.
Egoists - It's always about me, me and me. And my pets !
Root Cause : Voting Option - None of the above.
A very recent discussion with one of my teachers made me sit up and think about an option which has been doing rounds in the Indian media - should 'None of the above' be an option during elections ?
The media and lot of intellectuals argue that it should be, because the current lot of politicians are in no way deserving. They are a rotten lot. They are mean, bad, corrupt, immoral, inept, illiterate and what not. None of them are worthy of leading our people and nation from the front. And hence, to express this idea of dissent that the people are not happy with the politicians who are standing in an election, they choose the last option - None of the Above. And by doing this, they express to the Election Commission that they want better candidates.
There is an inherent fallacy in the argument, and exposes the hypocrisy of human nature in general. We often hear people saying that nobody is perfect. And a lot of times, human errors are ignored and made less severe, attributing it the fact that nobody is perfect. Then why wait for a perfect politician to arrive on the scene ? Or should it be The Politician ?
An example to simplify this. An ambulance driver is waiting for the next emergency call. He is stationed in a big metro city and its evening 7 P.M. - peak hour mess ! He gets a call and is asked to report to the accident site right in the middle of the city - which is around 10 km away from where he is currently. Now, he has got two options. First - he thinks that he has got to drive 10 km's, and that too in peak hour with roads all jammed and red lights. And decides against driving there. Second - he decides to go to the site, despite of all the traffic mess and the red lights. And plans out a strategy to reach earlier, by taking shortcuts, even if he can save 20 seconds per every alternate road, he would save around 2-3 minutes in total. And could be critical in such a case.
So, there we go. When we say that 'None of the above' should be an option, we are acting like the driver selecting the first option. We wait for the perfect politician to arrive, then to stand as a candidate and then vote for him. We want all the roads to be empty, all lights green. The second, we decide and work actively to study each of the candidates or parties meticulously, enlisting their agendas, goals, past records etc. Now, even if all of them are 'bad', having police cases against them, having been to jail, being illiterate - at least one of them is the best, relatively speaking.
The squint is the king amongst the blind. We have to select the best out of them. And then vote for the candidate / party. We have to start somewhere. So to refrain is to run away. To refrain is to be a coward. Changes take time. Evolution did not happen in a few years !
Or we go the way the media wants us to - wait for the perfect politician - and he never arrives - and we never vote!
The media and lot of intellectuals argue that it should be, because the current lot of politicians are in no way deserving. They are a rotten lot. They are mean, bad, corrupt, immoral, inept, illiterate and what not. None of them are worthy of leading our people and nation from the front. And hence, to express this idea of dissent that the people are not happy with the politicians who are standing in an election, they choose the last option - None of the Above. And by doing this, they express to the Election Commission that they want better candidates.
There is an inherent fallacy in the argument, and exposes the hypocrisy of human nature in general. We often hear people saying that nobody is perfect. And a lot of times, human errors are ignored and made less severe, attributing it the fact that nobody is perfect. Then why wait for a perfect politician to arrive on the scene ? Or should it be The Politician ?
An example to simplify this. An ambulance driver is waiting for the next emergency call. He is stationed in a big metro city and its evening 7 P.M. - peak hour mess ! He gets a call and is asked to report to the accident site right in the middle of the city - which is around 10 km away from where he is currently. Now, he has got two options. First - he thinks that he has got to drive 10 km's, and that too in peak hour with roads all jammed and red lights. And decides against driving there. Second - he decides to go to the site, despite of all the traffic mess and the red lights. And plans out a strategy to reach earlier, by taking shortcuts, even if he can save 20 seconds per every alternate road, he would save around 2-3 minutes in total. And could be critical in such a case.
So, there we go. When we say that 'None of the above' should be an option, we are acting like the driver selecting the first option. We wait for the perfect politician to arrive, then to stand as a candidate and then vote for him. We want all the roads to be empty, all lights green. The second, we decide and work actively to study each of the candidates or parties meticulously, enlisting their agendas, goals, past records etc. Now, even if all of them are 'bad', having police cases against them, having been to jail, being illiterate - at least one of them is the best, relatively speaking.
The squint is the king amongst the blind. We have to select the best out of them. And then vote for the candidate / party. We have to start somewhere. So to refrain is to run away. To refrain is to be a coward. Changes take time. Evolution did not happen in a few years !
Or we go the way the media wants us to - wait for the perfect politician - and he never arrives - and we never vote!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
