July 30, 2009 § 12 Comments
As a human being your place on Earth is dependent on your “sense of belonging”. And we try to belong to a myriad number of groups , in various permutations and combinations , but ultimately the one that seems to scar the singular human comradeship is our religious affiliation.
To secularists it causes endless heart aches, to see humans tear apart each other. But then we have come to a point , where a few frown upon these secularists and the heads of such groups declare them as infidels or a threat to their religion and that they need to be dealt with.
Is belonging or not belonging to a religious group all that important?
What has made religion the single autonomous power , with their various Gods?
One argument would be that man in general prefers not to take up responsibility.
The irony here is, we have taken it as our responsibility to take care of these religions , with our life and even more.
As we move into a new Era , where in we have started to accept that we need to change our attitude and our demeanour and approach to solving the pragmatic problems in living, the way we define our “sense of belonging” is quintessential .
The reason for problems is that we interact and in the process two universes of ideas clash , the barring is too much to sustain a bi-ambitious world.
One way to ensure a mono-synthetic society is to conclude that suppression is the only way to maintain a balance. If we look at this syllogism closer , we will find that the major premise is that we need a balance and the minor one that suppression is the only way.
And this exactly is what religion has helped evolve over the ages of humanity.
I do not claim religion is the root of evil , rather that religion has been chained and is being made to do as the masters who control it want it to do. Religion in essence aims at freeing man and hopes to breach the boundaries of human perception.
But in reality the essence of religion lies in the minds of people . The majority of whom are gullible, influenced by the rhetoric of orators and politicians. The reason for this gullibility is because we cannot define what is “good and what is “bad” in absolute sense. The alteration done is so simple that many fail to see it – a change in the yard scale. And to change this , we first need to change the latter premise – that suppression is the key to the balance.
To redefine maintaining a balance in any other way , than the existing one, is going to be a task which is hard to even imagine – we would need to move away centuries of domination and slavery. Unfortunately , the method adopted in India(i.e. giving reservations) is a negative step. In a way it is acknowledging that we have become subservient to the pseudo dogmas. It would only strengthen the hold of the suppressive methods.
What is suppression? This is a important question to answer. I would call it curtailing ‘freedom’.
Freedom is again a word which needs to be defined. You can say freedom is that which gives an individual a proportionate sense of belonging and acceptance. And here lies the answer , to what we can try do.
We need to understand and appreciate freedom. The line between indulgence and freedom may be very thin , almost nonexistent but the crux of freedom lies in the way we perceive and interact with others. Of course we cannot interfere with the way people think or make choices for them , but what we can do is try to remove the vintage prejudices and sneers , by stopping them from reaching our future.
We should try to find our way to a better race , not by thinking what ‘God‘ would find comforting but by understanding that our decisions are binding on the future of our kind. It might seem Utopian to dream of such a day, for after all we are no more than a galaxy of cells working together to survive . But then doesn’t this galaxy coexist without any Upheavals? Of course you can say that their thinking capacity is taken away by the ‘brain’. But what is the brain , but again another collection of cells?
But of course there is always a reflex or death. We can say reflexes give us a short term relief , i.e. revolutions are a temporary respite and well that death is the ultimate end of a bad mind. But then what dies and what lives on?
This is the question , which religions have capitalized on. And through out our history this is the question used as a fear of tool. I do wonder if hell really did exist, didn’t those exploiters realize that they would be the first to be dipped into a cauldron of boiling oil? But of course they do claim that , they are messengers of “God” .
At the same time without fear and guilt , we humans probably will be out of control. But then , I think it is better we remove these fears created by our imagination and present to our kind the real threats – without proper cooperation and coordination our race might bring about its own end; Earthquakes, tsunamis , floods, drought etc .
If we care enough for the living – this is not just about ‘healing the world’ , it is about saving ourselves. The world can take care of itself. Earth as a planet will go on for millions and billions of years. And anyway whatever you do , will affect the entire universe . And no it is not caring for the smaller things – it caring for the most important thing – the ‘I’ .
Kill religion? I don’t think so. We need to kill our inhibitions, which stops us from understanding.
Is killing justifiable? Can you face yourself ?
P.S;- Thanks Indi for helping me in edit this 🙂
February 4, 2009 § 12 Comments
So after everyone has cut,dissected,chewed and what not with the whole issue of “Indian Culture”,I am responding. I am not going to get into details about the whole incident.Forgive me if I digress too much,but it is too complicated to make it simple.
Be not too tame neither, but let your own discretion be your tutor: suit the action to the word, the word to the action; with this special observance, that you o’erstep not the modesty of nature:”
This is what the bard said all those years ago.And yet after all these years of hard thought ,development and modernisation,even as we run against ourselves in a never ending quest,humans in general and pseudo-humans in particular haven’t got it yet.
the corner stone of civilization and development and innovation has always been the “thought”(a few of you might recount this post.),yet this very thought has faced a lot of opposition since time immemorial. Inventors and those who are curious to know about the world,have always faced the wrath of those who are not capable of such.From Socrates through Galileo to every other individual who was tried for thinking, discrimination has always embraced those who dare to do the unthinkable-to think.
Not that the current incidents of discrimination have thing to do with science,it has more to do with the perception and cognitive ability of those who acted(isn’t that science? seeing the world around us?).The appalling and that which stands out is the fact that these people had no voice.Yet what is the standard by which they act?
Whose standard is the right standard?
Every creature has the ability to judge.This is instinctive,yet as we grow up the surroundings we grow in and the world around us(nurture) influences our standards of judgement.And so the reason we have this friction is because of different views/beliefs.Now these views and beliefs are woven into the person we are when we grow.So let me go out of the bound and venture into (tyring to) see what might have led to the varied standards.
In a world of many crimes,it is possible to over power a human with guilt.And people who have “sinned” (so to speak) all their lives look for a way to “redeem” themselves.And for such redemption the path most often than not leads to “godmen” .Throughout history these men have always have been a negation of the values which the thought allows.Let me be clear,
Once you make someone feel guilty of an action,there next response is to surrender.This gives the “judge” indispensable power over the other.Now to make sure that their pawn is either white or black(and thus ending the wanning monochrome) ,they dispel the very basic tool of human survival,the thought(long story made short,we can’t kill an animal one on one without tools) to make sure their pawns cannot see beyond the known environment.The proof of this is the fact that many of the greatest achievers in history,have all known to keep to themselves and not belong as such to any organisation in which they would be a pawn.
Now with such a large crowd at their disposal,any opposition (anyone who as much as uses the left instead of right) has to be disposed off.It becomes easy,as the majority is the law.Not a nice picture to paint.but we should remember that many have lived all this and mankind progressed into what it is today. Yet their(those who lived) Achilles heel has been that the fact that thinkers as such cannot be united under one frame,to create a roof for those who don’t like them is impossible.
So this negation has managed to get more than a foot and a hand in the world.And so has anyone who thought differently been chopped off them.So what we need to do is make sure that peoples’ ability to think are not compromised.IF this were a true jungle and you are left to your own devices with your face against an antagonising world with an uncanny ending proposed for you,then you would have no way out of it except thinking and acting.
And this remains.But when we do find a “tribe” we find security,this enables us to expand our thoughts and influence.Now what about the person who finds security in a thoughtless world,where the words of one who dreams at destruction is over powering and rhetoric ? He is on, strings to be pulled.
This post till now has eaten a lot of words.But don’t mistake me,I am asking you for your compassion for these pseudo-humans,I am asking you to choose which standard should survive.And let me put the other choice,which the above is a negation off-
A world where innovation is the key and love is more than that a dictionary can define.One where skill is valued and altruism is looked down upon and where the rules need not be imposed as each one has the sense of the quotation mentioned above.A world where ” force ” is that which is used to sustainably develop the world around and money is a mode of exchange.
WHICH ON WOULD YOU PREFER?
Whose fault is it?
I have read a lot of posts which go about trashing and beating the incident but I found very few looking at the fact and the problem and (almost) no one willing to place of origin.
If fable-ous stories suit your romanticism,the devil takes the face of anyone and everyone.If you prefer more tangible,there isn’t.These are ideas which have spread.After all it is from the people,for the people and by the people.So if we ever want to correct this,we should stop screaming and start looking for ways.We all are very generous at giving donations,so how about donating some time to look at what can be done?
From within the society it arises.Now it is not possible to change the views of people who are grown and senile but we can make sure that the future world is safe of such views.But then how?
A possible solution is to make schools provide education which would have more affinity to thought rather than other sorts.Make no mistake,it doesn’t mean you take away the prayers etc,I am not advocating that(nor am I trying to force the view that there should be such) but religion and its dogmatic impositions should not be tattooed into children,freedom and creativity should be the fundamentals.We can have special schools for people from less privileged backgrounds,where in they are thought how to think.
All this sounds romantic but the thing is we all don’t have time,we are running a race ,a human race.But then we forget that all this endangers for the very thing we are working for,a better tomorrow.
The onus might be heavy to bear,but then by not caring we are making it heavier for tomorrow.The problem is more complicated by the fact that no one is equal in thought and bodily.We cannot feed a code and expect the same output,we are designed to work in our own unique way.Discrimination will always be a problem. And jealously and other such emotions add make it more grotesque.
We can all write and write and condemn but the fact is that such forces do exist. When a leader who does believe in non-violence and development of human beings with an individual’s rights asserted and the world fit to be roamed and discovered(with the flora and fauna ) does take the helm,for a short while the world seems fine.Yet for something which has dominated for centuries one generation of washing does not remove the stains,it only pollutes the rivers.
I started writing this post,with a kilo of optimism but coming to a close,I don’t feel any sense of achievement.It is their mistake and it is ours as well.And we need to make sure “not a pound more” is taken.But blood shall be shed along and to those of us,who still want to see humans as complete as we are born,it adds macabre and sends into paranoia.
To suit the words to action and action to the word,i.e. use our discretion ,we need to have one standard.Yet that shouldn’t be rigid.But then rigidity has always been the shell of the society.So to simply make things look simpler so that we all can go with out lives and not forget all this as soon as the news channels have got their TRPs,let me say,we need to change the way people think.And we can only be catalysts ,so how storng are we going to be?
P.S: This post may not be complete in many sense,so I promise to reply to comments in full this time and not with smileys 🙂