ख्वाब था शायद,
ख्वाब ही होगा
देश मेरा आजाद था शायद,
आजाद ही होगा
फ़िर क्यूँ ज़ुल्म थे आम
फ़िर क्यूँ धुआं सा उठ रहा था
क्यूँ बम और गोली चली थी
क्यूँ अवाम सर के बल पड़ी थी
ख्वाब था शायद,
ख्वाब ही होगा
जीवन यहाँ दुष्वार था शायद
दुष्वार ही होगा
फ़िर क्यूँ छोटे से काम की कीमत बड़ी थी
क्यूँ अपने ही भाई की उँगलियाँ
अपनी जेब में मिली थी
गले से निवाला छीनने में लगी थीं
ख्वाब था शायद,
ख्वाब ही होगा
कायरता का राज था शायद
राज ही होगा
क्यूँ जाति-धर्म की बिल्लियाँ
देश की रोटी पे लड़ने में जुटी थी
बंदरों की नज़रें भी उसी पर टिकी थी
क्यूँ माँ भेड़ियों के समक्ष असहाय पड़ी थी
ख्वाब था शायद
ख्वाब ही होगा
हम बच्चों का स्वार्थ था शायद
स्वार्थ ही होगा
क्यों भूख की अग्नि ह्रदय जला रही थी
क्यों जल की प्यास रूह सुखा रही थी
दरिद्र हाथ पसरे खड़े थे
बिचोलिये अपने कोष भर रहे थे
ख्वाब था शायद
ख्वाब ही होगा
अनुकम्पा का अभाव था शायद
आभाव ही होगा
क्यूँ लक्ष्मी का तिरस्कार हो रहा था
क्यूँ चाँद सूरज का इंतज़ार हो रहा था
माताओं की कोख सूनी हो रही थी
मानवता अपना संतुलन खो रही थी
ख्वाब था शायद
ख्वाब ही होगा
वह निर्दयी समाज था शायद
समाज ही होगा
क्यों हमारे रक्षकों की जितनी बहादुरी बड़ी थी
क्यों हमारी स्मरण शक्ति उतनी ही क्षीण थी
उनके लहू से नेता अपनी होली खेलते थे
क्यों एक आह भर के हम अपनी राह चल लेते थे
ख्वाब था शायद
ख्वाब ही होगा
सैनिक बस एक व्यापार था शायद
व्यापार ही होगा
क्यों यह पाप का घडा न भरता था
क्यों भगवन अपना अवतार न करता था
बुराई की अच्छाई पर विजय का भय था
आ जाओ मोरे श्याम, फ़िर गीता शिक्षा का समय था
ख्वाब था शायद
ख्वाब ही होगा
आस की डोर से बंधा विश्वास था शायद
विश्वास ही होगा
स्वप्न ही होता तोह अच्छा था
आँखें खोलते और भूल जाते
जीवन भी वही कुस्वप्न हो गया
जीवन से भाग कर कहाँ जाते
ख्वाब था शायद
ख्वाब ही होगा
दिल में छुपा आक्रोश था शायद
आक्रोश ही होगा
Monday, December 1, 2008
Thursday, August 21, 2008
My salutes to Manmohan Singh
I read in a translation of Nostradamus when I was young, that a leader would emerge from a region of 5 rivers who would lead India to glory. At that time I wondered, in the era of Vajpayee, Advani, Sonia Gandhi there was no Punjabi in sight who could be called a leader of India. Almost miraculously, from obscurity rose Manmohan Singh to become prime minister of India in 2004. From the dirty politics, rose a lotus, the messiah of 1990's, the man responsible for phenomenal growth of India, the man who turned India around from bankruptcy to a land of opportunities, Manmohan Singh did fulfil the first part of the prophecy. A punjabi had indeed risen to be a leader of India.
For the complete term, I was not particualrly impressed by his stature which was always second to Sonia Gandhi. I used to wonder how can an individual of Manmohan Singh's capacity could be a part of petty politics? How could he survive being a 'puppet' prime minister?
The first real test of my trust in him, came when the issue of OBC reservations came up. I thought that this decision will have far reaching implications for India and its industry. Almost all political parities either supported the proposal or kept a neutral stance to avoid the ire of almost 50% population of India which forms most of the electorate. It was public knowledge that Arjun Singh had jumped the gun on this issue to garner the credit and that PMO was not really inclined to bring it forth. Now that the cat was out of the bag, I thought that Manmohan Singh would never back this being an intellectual himself. The reality was of course far from my assumption. Singh came out in support of reservations though he tried to dilute the impasse by suggesting to increase the seats in all affected universities. For me, Manmohan Singh did not live up to his reputation of an intellectual among the pigs of Politics. He had become a part of the crowd too. I thought that Singh should have made it a point to fight, he should have staked his reputation on this and should have personally resigned from PM's post if Congress went ahead with the proposal. Nothing of this sort happened and I was dejected.
Then came the nuclear deal, which was very important from the point of view of energy security of India. India required almost 21000MW more power by 2015 and the planned power projects could only make up for 7000MW. The huge gap of 14000MW if faced, India would lose the growth momentum. We were never really self sufficient when it came to power. The nuclear deal was fought tooth and nail by Left parties who made it an ideological issue since it was being negotiated with US. The opposition anyway found fault with everything the government does. I, to start with, did not attach much importance to the deal myself. Since its impact will only be seen in 2015, its impossible for the common man to appreciate the wisdom. Here comes the vision of the leader - Manmohan Singh. This time he did all I had thought he would do for the case of reservations. He made the nuclear deal his own prestige issue. He took it personally to rally all of the congress behind him. The man of few words was shouting for everyone to join his side. Congress for that matter showed exemplary courage in backing its PM, even when it could mean the demise of the government (when Left quit). Finally the government was saved and nuclear deal is being discussed at its last stage. Hopefully it will pass.
We all, the common men, are very short sighted. They can never appreciate the vision of Manmohan Singh and the leaders of his like. It is now a common knowledge that what visionaries do today, bear fruits only in future. Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery, and US becomes the melting pot of all the nationalities. Most of the contribution to the US society is being made by the foreign nationals. Nehru invested in IITs, IIMs and other institutes of repute when the money could be diverted to masses for various projects. Now India is reaping the fruits of Nehru's wisdom. Reservations and other short term issues like farm waivers, inflation, do not make or break the future of a country. The only reason a country prospers is because it offers great opportunity for the business to grow.
US became the biggest economy in the world in spite of things like slavery, apartheid etc. Australia became a developed Nation in spite of so low standards of education. Singapore became the center of business for Asia even when industry and education was not fully developed. China too is becoming an economic superpower and preferred place for investment because it offers investors opportunities. Even being a communist nation doesn't deter the investors to invest in China.
Globalization alone can solve the problem of poverty because with it brings a deluge of jobs. India, by the favour of Manmohan Singh, is enjoying such a deluge in IT and ITES industry today. If this favoritism for India has to continue, then we need to address the problems in our infrastructure. Social problems of considering a man more equal than others reduce with prosperity of of the weaker sections and their eventual acceptance by upper classes, as is evident from American society and their problem of apartheid. I think the worth of a leader is only known when the seeds he has sown bear fruits. I am sure the words of Nostradamus will dawn on all my countrymen and probably then the leader from the land of 5 rivers will be considered one of the biggest visionary India has ever produced.
Update 16/06/2009 - Nostradamus was a genius for sure. Now the person from the terriotery of 5 rivers has become only the first prime minister to be elected again after a full term. My wishes with him for an equally rewarding term.
For the complete term, I was not particualrly impressed by his stature which was always second to Sonia Gandhi. I used to wonder how can an individual of Manmohan Singh's capacity could be a part of petty politics? How could he survive being a 'puppet' prime minister?
The first real test of my trust in him, came when the issue of OBC reservations came up. I thought that this decision will have far reaching implications for India and its industry. Almost all political parities either supported the proposal or kept a neutral stance to avoid the ire of almost 50% population of India which forms most of the electorate. It was public knowledge that Arjun Singh had jumped the gun on this issue to garner the credit and that PMO was not really inclined to bring it forth. Now that the cat was out of the bag, I thought that Manmohan Singh would never back this being an intellectual himself. The reality was of course far from my assumption. Singh came out in support of reservations though he tried to dilute the impasse by suggesting to increase the seats in all affected universities. For me, Manmohan Singh did not live up to his reputation of an intellectual among the pigs of Politics. He had become a part of the crowd too. I thought that Singh should have made it a point to fight, he should have staked his reputation on this and should have personally resigned from PM's post if Congress went ahead with the proposal. Nothing of this sort happened and I was dejected.
Then came the nuclear deal, which was very important from the point of view of energy security of India. India required almost 21000MW more power by 2015 and the planned power projects could only make up for 7000MW. The huge gap of 14000MW if faced, India would lose the growth momentum. We were never really self sufficient when it came to power. The nuclear deal was fought tooth and nail by Left parties who made it an ideological issue since it was being negotiated with US. The opposition anyway found fault with everything the government does. I, to start with, did not attach much importance to the deal myself. Since its impact will only be seen in 2015, its impossible for the common man to appreciate the wisdom. Here comes the vision of the leader - Manmohan Singh. This time he did all I had thought he would do for the case of reservations. He made the nuclear deal his own prestige issue. He took it personally to rally all of the congress behind him. The man of few words was shouting for everyone to join his side. Congress for that matter showed exemplary courage in backing its PM, even when it could mean the demise of the government (when Left quit). Finally the government was saved and nuclear deal is being discussed at its last stage. Hopefully it will pass.
We all, the common men, are very short sighted. They can never appreciate the vision of Manmohan Singh and the leaders of his like. It is now a common knowledge that what visionaries do today, bear fruits only in future. Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery, and US becomes the melting pot of all the nationalities. Most of the contribution to the US society is being made by the foreign nationals. Nehru invested in IITs, IIMs and other institutes of repute when the money could be diverted to masses for various projects. Now India is reaping the fruits of Nehru's wisdom. Reservations and other short term issues like farm waivers, inflation, do not make or break the future of a country. The only reason a country prospers is because it offers great opportunity for the business to grow.
US became the biggest economy in the world in spite of things like slavery, apartheid etc. Australia became a developed Nation in spite of so low standards of education. Singapore became the center of business for Asia even when industry and education was not fully developed. China too is becoming an economic superpower and preferred place for investment because it offers investors opportunities. Even being a communist nation doesn't deter the investors to invest in China.
Globalization alone can solve the problem of poverty because with it brings a deluge of jobs. India, by the favour of Manmohan Singh, is enjoying such a deluge in IT and ITES industry today. If this favoritism for India has to continue, then we need to address the problems in our infrastructure. Social problems of considering a man more equal than others reduce with prosperity of of the weaker sections and their eventual acceptance by upper classes, as is evident from American society and their problem of apartheid. I think the worth of a leader is only known when the seeds he has sown bear fruits. I am sure the words of Nostradamus will dawn on all my countrymen and probably then the leader from the land of 5 rivers will be considered one of the biggest visionary India has ever produced.
Update 16/06/2009 - Nostradamus was a genius for sure. Now the person from the terriotery of 5 rivers has become only the first prime minister to be elected again after a full term. My wishes with him for an equally rewarding term.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Me Myself and God - III
God is the manifestation of man's inner self. We make our gods according to our own impression of our own self. Thus a honest and fair person will conceive god as honest and fair. This effectively means that if this person has a servant, he would expect himself to be treated the same way by god as he would treat his servant. In addition, he would expect his servant to behave with him the same way he would behave with his gods. Similarly, a cruel person will think god in cruel terms, who would punish him him severely if he erred. Thus, if ever he erred, he would frantically ask for god's forgiveness.
This naturally gives rise to the question, how exactly is an atheist's god? An atheist is one because he cannot think that someone else is in control of his life. He cannot believe in something he cannot perceive either by his senses or by his logic. Also, it is safe to assume that atheists, since refuse to be subjugated themselves, they would not, in turn, subjugate others.An atheists god is thus, an indifferent god; who, if at all, is a supreme power, would refrain from using it over the lives of common people.
Then there is another class of people, found in abundance in mythology, who think they are the gods. They are proud of their existense and the power they enjoy over others. what would their conception of God be? If I am allowed my creative freedom and imagination, I reckon they would think of a god as a cheat who has usurped all the power. Since they think they are as powerful as god himself, they think that this position of power could be theirs too. So they too conceive god in their own image i.e. a cheat, powerful (but not as much as them), and someone who has usurped power. Such mythological figures have generally usurped / maintained power themselves by wrongful means e.g. Kansa, Ravana in Hindu mythology.
This naturally gives rise to the question, how exactly is an atheist's god? An atheist is one because he cannot think that someone else is in control of his life. He cannot believe in something he cannot perceive either by his senses or by his logic. Also, it is safe to assume that atheists, since refuse to be subjugated themselves, they would not, in turn, subjugate others.An atheists god is thus, an indifferent god; who, if at all, is a supreme power, would refrain from using it over the lives of common people.
Then there is another class of people, found in abundance in mythology, who think they are the gods. They are proud of their existense and the power they enjoy over others. what would their conception of God be? If I am allowed my creative freedom and imagination, I reckon they would think of a god as a cheat who has usurped all the power. Since they think they are as powerful as god himself, they think that this position of power could be theirs too. So they too conceive god in their own image i.e. a cheat, powerful (but not as much as them), and someone who has usurped power. Such mythological figures have generally usurped / maintained power themselves by wrongful means e.g. Kansa, Ravana in Hindu mythology.
In short, our gods are only as good or bad as we are. Extending the analogy, our gods are only as powerful (or powerless), only as brave as we are, only as rich as we are. Doesn't it naturally extend that we are worshiping our exaggerated selves? Does that mean we are worshiping ourselves? Also, does that mean we cannot exceed our limitations as long as we do not decide to do so.... I certainly agree and believe in these dogmas.
This reduces god to a mere convenience to whom we turn to when our courage, determination, resolve, intelligence fail us. We hope for a miracle since god has been credited with many. But we are only as confident of a miracle as we are ourselves confident of accomplishing the job at hand. Thus a coward when asks for heavenly assistance when in danger, is only hoping for a miracle. He is praying as a last resort. Deep down he would know that he is doomed. Similarly, when a student prays to god before exam, he is as sure of god's help as sure he is of his own chances.
To cut the long story short, I think that God is perceived as our own extended, exaggerated self. Our nature, our mannerisms and our own qualities is what make our god. But there is another face of the god - that is the god of miracles. This is the face we turn to when lose heart. But we are only as confident of receiving help as confident we are about getting out of the situation. Thus, it pays rich dividend to strengthen one's own spirit. For this has double advantage of strengthening of our god and our belief in him. For we are one with him and in us he lives.
To cut the long story short, I think that God is perceived as our own extended, exaggerated self. Our nature, our mannerisms and our own qualities is what make our god. But there is another face of the god - that is the god of miracles. This is the face we turn to when lose heart. But we are only as confident of receiving help as confident we are about getting out of the situation. Thus, it pays rich dividend to strengthen one's own spirit. For this has double advantage of strengthening of our god and our belief in him. For we are one with him and in us he lives.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Olympic torch relay
Olympic torch relay is one of the hallmark events of the Olympic games. The games which embody the spirit of sportsmanship and camaraderie, has a beginning which has always been victim to the opposite - the proclamation of the power of a nation. That was how the torch came into being. Nazi Germany in 1936 planned the torch relay to cover a lot of Europe which eventually they captured. This year too, China planned to do the disguised flag march in Taiwan. But the confrontation between the Taiwanese and Chinese leaders prompted IOC to intervene and thankfully averted the disastrous route of the torch. Little respite was achieved as Tibetans launched their own demonstration against Chinese and used the Olympics as their backdrop to its maximum effect. Similarly Olympics were hijacked by Palestinian terrorists when shoot out in Olympic village led to death of athletes in 1972.
This blatant abuse of something as pious as Olympics, which stand for camaraderie, the spirit of co-operative progress, the celebration of prowess of human body and mind and the only positive, and guileless conglomeration of the citizens of the common world, is a reflection of the depravity of human spirit. This applies to both the oppressors and the victims, the politicians and the protesters. It is a lack of will, and confidence in their struggle and leaders which leads to the protesters looking for such grand occasions to show their not so grand aspirations. It is also a lack of sympathy of those in power to deal such things with iron hand only to leave the Olympic rings tattered and blood clad. It is also ludicrous policy of appeasement which other states follow to allow all this unabated.
It shows the abysmal levels to which our sympathy for fellow citizens have fallen. It shows that we have made Olympics a publicity stunt to make the world hear of our pleas. Its like in a a play of Shakespeare, a gentleman jumps from the audience to stage shouting for Palestine! This invokes pity rather than empathy. This shows the fragility and transience of this so called freedom struggle. This is a derogatory attempt at the very thing they are fighting for - the freedom of man.
Let us leave Olympics alone from our petty squabbles. Its way more than just a sporting event. Olympics is the celebration of mankind, of its existence and survival, of human ability, of oneness of the nations across the world. Lets not deface this edifice of love and co-operation, the only one still remaining. Its a family re-union for the world, lets not malign it for the differences in the family. Its a festival where the whole world should celebrate its being forgetting the differences. Lets play for sometime before we resume our fights.....
This blatant abuse of something as pious as Olympics, which stand for camaraderie, the spirit of co-operative progress, the celebration of prowess of human body and mind and the only positive, and guileless conglomeration of the citizens of the common world, is a reflection of the depravity of human spirit. This applies to both the oppressors and the victims, the politicians and the protesters. It is a lack of will, and confidence in their struggle and leaders which leads to the protesters looking for such grand occasions to show their not so grand aspirations. It is also a lack of sympathy of those in power to deal such things with iron hand only to leave the Olympic rings tattered and blood clad. It is also ludicrous policy of appeasement which other states follow to allow all this unabated.
It shows the abysmal levels to which our sympathy for fellow citizens have fallen. It shows that we have made Olympics a publicity stunt to make the world hear of our pleas. Its like in a a play of Shakespeare, a gentleman jumps from the audience to stage shouting for Palestine! This invokes pity rather than empathy. This shows the fragility and transience of this so called freedom struggle. This is a derogatory attempt at the very thing they are fighting for - the freedom of man.
Let us leave Olympics alone from our petty squabbles. Its way more than just a sporting event. Olympics is the celebration of mankind, of its existence and survival, of human ability, of oneness of the nations across the world. Lets not deface this edifice of love and co-operation, the only one still remaining. Its a family re-union for the world, lets not malign it for the differences in the family. Its a festival where the whole world should celebrate its being forgetting the differences. Lets play for sometime before we resume our fights.....
Monday, March 17, 2008
Me, myself and god - II
Whenever the word god echoes through my mind, myriad of contradictions come rushing. My mom and several others say that god is over and above the realm of logic and science. Also, that it is not possible to explain everything about god because we don't know enough. That is a convincing argument because there are so many things we cannot explain using science and logic, including building blocks of matter and our own universe. Science as develops will shed more light over these issues. Will there be enough evidence to prove or disprove the existence of god, i really doubt.
Even in science fiction stories, a god is created which cannot be really explained. Star wars call it the 'force' which they say is a collective consciousness of all the organisms in the universe. The good derive strength from this force and so does the evil. Matrix calls it the architect who is a program himself. It is again left unexplained who created him in the first place. If I am allowed some liberty I would call this creator as the combined consciousness of the machines - again not a very lucid concept. This uncertainty, I am sure comes from our own ability to define our own god precisely.
The reason why such contradictions arise is because we fail to make up our mind that god is not evil. The Christians believe that the very fact we are born on this earth because we are sinners and the only way we can escape the hell is to stay devoted and to not to indulge in any sins while we stay here. Hindus believe that we were not really good enough to be accommodated in the moksha and hence given another chance to prove our worth. Therefore, we should stay miles away from sins. Both Christians and Hindus define god as merciful and only if we bow before them they will absolve us of all the sins (Christians believe that confessions will absolve them of all the sins and Hindus believe that a holy dip in Ganges or a visit to 4 dhaam will do the same). That looks like a corporate blackmail. Only if one worships the god, can he be saved from an unseen wrath. We are asked to follow the righteousness which keeps changing with time, i guess because so does the god!
In my view god and his creations cannot be above any logic. Since he made us in his own image, he should be the most logical being. This also follows from 'god is absolute' paradigm. if god is absolute and beyond comparisons, we cannot say that god is above , below or under logical realm. Why there exists so many contradictions about god is because some people, the keepers of our religion, have taken away from us the right to define our own god. How did they succeed in the delusion of such large populace?
1. Initially people did not know who they would go to if they faced peril. They defined their own god and found solace in him. Creating god in their own image, people started offering their gods what they thought would please themselves like food, wealth etc.
2. The religion keepers suddenly realized the potential of the idea - power and wealth is a tempting cocktail. They created religion, made the creations of some learned men holy and declared themselves as the expert over them and hence closest to god.
3. Humans like to be led, and all that was required was some rhetoric about abstract topics like pleasing the god, death, heaven and hell, life, after birth, miracles. Religion keepers also created ample excuses for people to give them power and wealth. Some other time on how they created morals!
4. Slowly organized religions spread as people found learned men practising it. Eventually it became the cult. Some other time on why they succeeded!
A child doesn't know that a god exists. He needs to be taught, in fact, he needs to be scared to believe in one. As the child grows up all his curiosities are dealt with an iron hand. Living in the big bad world, he realizes his insecurities - the fear of failure, the fear of rejection - and commits that bowing to god only can save him from them. Unable to cope with the peer pressure, he finds god to be the only being who can help him find the courage to fight the world, to help him work a miracle. He fails to realize though that he is the dreamer, the thinker, the doer, the winner or loser - he is the source of ideas, the source of courage, the source of hope, the source of motivation. He is - the source of success and failure - the god he worships! And the religion.... lets him.
A monk passes by a green prosperous, beautiful field and says to farmer, " What a beautiful field you and god have made." The farmer replies, "True Father, but you should have seen it when he had it all for himself."
PS: More on how we are trained to follow religion later.
Even in science fiction stories, a god is created which cannot be really explained. Star wars call it the 'force' which they say is a collective consciousness of all the organisms in the universe. The good derive strength from this force and so does the evil. Matrix calls it the architect who is a program himself. It is again left unexplained who created him in the first place. If I am allowed some liberty I would call this creator as the combined consciousness of the machines - again not a very lucid concept. This uncertainty, I am sure comes from our own ability to define our own god precisely.
The reason why such contradictions arise is because we fail to make up our mind that god is not evil. The Christians believe that the very fact we are born on this earth because we are sinners and the only way we can escape the hell is to stay devoted and to not to indulge in any sins while we stay here. Hindus believe that we were not really good enough to be accommodated in the moksha and hence given another chance to prove our worth. Therefore, we should stay miles away from sins. Both Christians and Hindus define god as merciful and only if we bow before them they will absolve us of all the sins (Christians believe that confessions will absolve them of all the sins and Hindus believe that a holy dip in Ganges or a visit to 4 dhaam will do the same). That looks like a corporate blackmail. Only if one worships the god, can he be saved from an unseen wrath. We are asked to follow the righteousness which keeps changing with time, i guess because so does the god!
In my view god and his creations cannot be above any logic. Since he made us in his own image, he should be the most logical being. This also follows from 'god is absolute' paradigm. if god is absolute and beyond comparisons, we cannot say that god is above , below or under logical realm. Why there exists so many contradictions about god is because some people, the keepers of our religion, have taken away from us the right to define our own god. How did they succeed in the delusion of such large populace?
1. Initially people did not know who they would go to if they faced peril. They defined their own god and found solace in him. Creating god in their own image, people started offering their gods what they thought would please themselves like food, wealth etc.
2. The religion keepers suddenly realized the potential of the idea - power and wealth is a tempting cocktail. They created religion, made the creations of some learned men holy and declared themselves as the expert over them and hence closest to god.
3. Humans like to be led, and all that was required was some rhetoric about abstract topics like pleasing the god, death, heaven and hell, life, after birth, miracles. Religion keepers also created ample excuses for people to give them power and wealth. Some other time on how they created morals!
4. Slowly organized religions spread as people found learned men practising it. Eventually it became the cult. Some other time on why they succeeded!
A child doesn't know that a god exists. He needs to be taught, in fact, he needs to be scared to believe in one. As the child grows up all his curiosities are dealt with an iron hand. Living in the big bad world, he realizes his insecurities - the fear of failure, the fear of rejection - and commits that bowing to god only can save him from them. Unable to cope with the peer pressure, he finds god to be the only being who can help him find the courage to fight the world, to help him work a miracle. He fails to realize though that he is the dreamer, the thinker, the doer, the winner or loser - he is the source of ideas, the source of courage, the source of hope, the source of motivation. He is - the source of success and failure - the god he worships! And the religion.... lets him.
A monk passes by a green prosperous, beautiful field and says to farmer, " What a beautiful field you and god have made." The farmer replies, "True Father, but you should have seen it when he had it all for himself."
PS: More on how we are trained to follow religion later.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Happy valentine's day
Once upon a time a crocodile and monkey were close friends. Monkey specially liked crocodile's company very much and craved for it. Crocodile also responded to monkey with the same fervor. Monkey loved to bring smile on crocodile and gradually fell in love with the crocodile. Nursing this secret love, the monkey kept being the same notorious self. Crocodile would give a water ride to the monkey and monkey would get crocodile the best nuts of the forest. Crocodile would take monkey on the island in the pond where the best fruits were born. Monkey too helped to attract prey to crocodile's pond.
The love of the monkey kept increasing and the monkey started going out of the way to do things crocodile desired. Monkey sometimes kept looking on empty stomach when crocodile did not get any prey. Monkey would be crocodile's support when the crocodile was feeling low and did its best to cheer the crocodile up. Talking to each other they could face any difficulty which came their way.
Once crocodile called monkey in the middle of the night to say something. Monkey's heart was throbbing - will it be the thing the monkey always wanted to hear? Or was the crocodile had decided to leave the pond and forest? Half anticipating and half dreading monkey reached the pond. The monkey found crocodile smiling ear-to-ear so as its cheek barely missing the eyes which monkey always so loved to see. Before monkey could say anything, crocodile said "I am engaged!!!" flashing its ring towards monkey. At the same time a mermaid arose from the water and held crocodile's arms. Monkey did not like the taste of its own heart. The monkey congratulated both of them and left to cry the night away.
Slowly the crocodile's time began to be diverted towards the mermaid and monkey had to go alone most of the time. Monkey never complained and only encouraged crocodile to be as lovely to the mermaid as possible. Tears were often returned back to the place they came from as they were forbidden to show monkey's grief. It was forbidden to cause grief to the crocodile. The crocodile, however, was not naive and understood monkey's feelings. But it preferred to be silent as it realized there was not much it could do. It also did not want to weaken their bond by discussing it. It did not want to lose its best friend. It was was so selfish.
Crocodile and mermaid were married some time in future and Monkey was made their best man. Mermaid wouldn't stop eulogizing the crocodile in front of the Monkey. Monkey drank away its own tears to keep its heart reaching his teeth. Mermaid would tell about all the wonderful places crocodile took the mermaid - the places which monkey had found to take crocodile to. Mermaid would rant about how they spent swimming together and how beautiful the island in the pond was. Monkey could only praise how thoughtful crocodile was, with that seething in the chest.
Once after wedding, crocodile called upon the monkey to have a ride on the pond and to take the monkey to the island. Crocodile was swimming slowly as if pondering to say something or not. Talking first crocodile said "I am in a precarious situation. The Mermaid has asked me to get a delicacy." The Monkey joyfully replied with a lump in the throat"You should do every thing for the mermaid."
Crocodile hesitatingly said "But mermaid wants to have a monkey's heart; and you know I cannot catch any monkey. They are too fast. The mermaid suggested I bring you by trickery. I could not bear it and thought if you would come on your own.......". I am fine if you don't, I will totally understand."
Monkey looked the rabbit eyes of the crocodile, a drop of tear shining with love - for the mermaid and expectation for the monkey. Monkey looked at crocodile's sheepish face and said "Happy Valentine's day dear. Lets go."
The love of the monkey kept increasing and the monkey started going out of the way to do things crocodile desired. Monkey sometimes kept looking on empty stomach when crocodile did not get any prey. Monkey would be crocodile's support when the crocodile was feeling low and did its best to cheer the crocodile up. Talking to each other they could face any difficulty which came their way.
Once crocodile called monkey in the middle of the night to say something. Monkey's heart was throbbing - will it be the thing the monkey always wanted to hear? Or was the crocodile had decided to leave the pond and forest? Half anticipating and half dreading monkey reached the pond. The monkey found crocodile smiling ear-to-ear so as its cheek barely missing the eyes which monkey always so loved to see. Before monkey could say anything, crocodile said "I am engaged!!!" flashing its ring towards monkey. At the same time a mermaid arose from the water and held crocodile's arms. Monkey did not like the taste of its own heart. The monkey congratulated both of them and left to cry the night away.
Slowly the crocodile's time began to be diverted towards the mermaid and monkey had to go alone most of the time. Monkey never complained and only encouraged crocodile to be as lovely to the mermaid as possible. Tears were often returned back to the place they came from as they were forbidden to show monkey's grief. It was forbidden to cause grief to the crocodile. The crocodile, however, was not naive and understood monkey's feelings. But it preferred to be silent as it realized there was not much it could do. It also did not want to weaken their bond by discussing it. It did not want to lose its best friend. It was was so selfish.
Crocodile and mermaid were married some time in future and Monkey was made their best man. Mermaid wouldn't stop eulogizing the crocodile in front of the Monkey. Monkey drank away its own tears to keep its heart reaching his teeth. Mermaid would tell about all the wonderful places crocodile took the mermaid - the places which monkey had found to take crocodile to. Mermaid would rant about how they spent swimming together and how beautiful the island in the pond was. Monkey could only praise how thoughtful crocodile was, with that seething in the chest.
Once after wedding, crocodile called upon the monkey to have a ride on the pond and to take the monkey to the island. Crocodile was swimming slowly as if pondering to say something or not. Talking first crocodile said "I am in a precarious situation. The Mermaid has asked me to get a delicacy." The Monkey joyfully replied with a lump in the throat"You should do every thing for the mermaid."
Crocodile hesitatingly said "But mermaid wants to have a monkey's heart; and you know I cannot catch any monkey. They are too fast. The mermaid suggested I bring you by trickery. I could not bear it and thought if you would come on your own.......". I am fine if you don't, I will totally understand."
Monkey looked the rabbit eyes of the crocodile, a drop of tear shining with love - for the mermaid and expectation for the monkey. Monkey looked at crocodile's sheepish face and said "Happy Valentine's day dear. Lets go."
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Evolutionary Contradiction - Victorious the losers
The life on earth begins from smallest single-cellular organisms. Life develops itself to bigger and more complex animals and plants by a rule of natural selection as given by Charles Darwin. Darwin has written that every organism has a natural tendency to adapt to its surroundings. Those organisms, which do that effectively, leads to development of new features as a result of adaptation. Those organisms, which are unable to adapt, die. Mr. Darwin, unfortunately, took only a small time frame to propose his theory - may be a few generations. If this evolution is studied for a longer time frame, it is easy to notice a contradiction in the theory when extended for longer time frames. If Darwin's theory is true then as the organism tries to adapt itself to the unfriendly environment and/or to get better than his peers, he only gets better and better at what he is supposed to do to be alive. If a monkey is supposed to reach to the food before his buddies do, then he needs to be more agile and nimble. As more and more generations pass, the monkeys to come become better and better at what they actually are. Thus, all the evolution has done is to produce better monkeys. Why then we, the humans, are so different from the monkeys? This is because we chose not to do what the monkeys were doing. Humans were those monkeys which lost out in the race to be more agile and nimble. They were those monkeys which could not reach to food before it was already eaten by the better monkeys.
One of the path-breaking events which occurred in the human history was drying of Africa. As Africa dried out, number of trees reduced and the monkeys had to come down to the land to look for food. These , of course, were the monkeys who did not get the share of the pie on trees. They were the losers. Now, the food on the land was not easy to find unless the head is raised above the grass of Africa. But raising one's head in the grass is full of danger as predators are on the look out of easy prey. Those who did raise their head from the grass were the ones who were not quick enough to reach to the easily accessible food on the ground. Those who did attempt to raise the head , and were able to reach the food first stood to gain and those who did not had to rise up and stand on the two feet instead of four to see the distant food. These, again, were the losers and our first ancestors.
The crux of the matter is that although the survival of the fittest holds good within one species and its evolution from the primitive form to contemporary, it is those who lost out in this evolution who grew into new species. These were the survivors who were not fittest but found ways to evolve nevertheless into better, stronger species. Similarly, The true development of next intelligent species will not be from the brightest and smartest humans. We can expect the next race of rulers of earth from the people we think the least of. Victorious the losers!
One of the path-breaking events which occurred in the human history was drying of Africa. As Africa dried out, number of trees reduced and the monkeys had to come down to the land to look for food. These , of course, were the monkeys who did not get the share of the pie on trees. They were the losers. Now, the food on the land was not easy to find unless the head is raised above the grass of Africa. But raising one's head in the grass is full of danger as predators are on the look out of easy prey. Those who did raise their head from the grass were the ones who were not quick enough to reach to the easily accessible food on the ground. Those who did attempt to raise the head , and were able to reach the food first stood to gain and those who did not had to rise up and stand on the two feet instead of four to see the distant food. These, again, were the losers and our first ancestors.
The crux of the matter is that although the survival of the fittest holds good within one species and its evolution from the primitive form to contemporary, it is those who lost out in this evolution who grew into new species. These were the survivors who were not fittest but found ways to evolve nevertheless into better, stronger species. Similarly, The true development of next intelligent species will not be from the brightest and smartest humans. We can expect the next race of rulers of earth from the people we think the least of. Victorious the losers!
Love
Gyanotsuk: What is love?
Guru: Love is not a singular concept and it is impossible to give a precise definition to it. It is something which is defined in its attributes. Similarly, there is no way to feel love. It is only felt in its attributes. It is the combined effect of these attributes which is called love.
One of the attributes of the love is ecstasy. Happiness, actually, is an event and not a state in itself - as it is transient. Love makes one experience the happiness so often that it becomes a state. This happiness ,thus, becomes satisfaction.
Another attribute of love is charity - not in the exact sense of the word but by the broader meaning of doing things for the happiness of the others. Other person's happiness makes the person in love happy himself and as a result the latter tries more often to be happy. An extreme form of this attribute is sacrifice.
Like a true animal, man doesn't want to share this happiness with any other person. From this attribute emerges the attribute of possessiveness and jealousy. This is also the reason why someone in love misses his beloved since he is not able to feel the same happiness.
Gyanotsuk: If love is only felt in its attributes, how does a person come to know if he is in love?
Guru: Love is not an emotion but a state. It is felt in its attributes which are passing emotions and for it to become a state, it needs its victim's permission before the person is smitten. In most cases the victim's permission depends on whether or not he is in a state to love someone. With one's permission when the person does fall in love, he is slowly addicted to the eternal ecstasy and without its dose, he starts feeling lost. That is when the person realizes that he has fallen in love.
Gyanotsuk: What happens when love is not returned to a person?
Guru: That is a state of extreme agony. The person looks for the happiness he had made himself addicted to. Although the the person smitten may have been addicted, its the beloved which has fanned the fire, perhaps in goodwill without any intentions. The beloved declines the love of the person smitten because they are not at the same level in terms of their addiction of each other.
Gyanotsuk: Even if the beloved is not in love, is the beloved still addicted to the smitten? Can this addiction lead to love?
Guru:Every person is addicted to every other person close to him. The only difference is how often they need each other. E.g. a girl and a boy are close friends. Girl can stay without seeing and talking to the boy for 3 days but the boy can stay for 5 days. In this case the girl is more addicted to the boy than the boy is to the girl. This addiction is the foundation of love. There is a threshold which should be crossed for a person to agree to himself that he is in love. Unfortunately, this is threshold is not the same for every person. Most people confess their love when their levels have been crossed. Ideally, confession should only be made when the beloved has breached her levels.
Gyanotsuk: If the confession was made before the levels of the beloved were breached and she declines, does the smitten stand another chance?
Guru: In case, the levels have not been breached, the decline should not be taken as the final frontier. The decline means that the levels have not been breached but could be breached in future. But for that to happen, normalcy of pre-confession times must be restored. The confession of the smitten and the eventual decline by the beloved does implicitly make her decide that she doesn't want to be in love. This decision to be changed, normalcy between them must be restored at the earliest and then equation must be developed further to make beloved cross her levels.
Gyanotsuk: Since everyone close to a person is addicted to the person, is it possible for the person to induce anyone to love him?
Guru:Yes and No. Yes because love is only experienced in its attributes. Thus human mind can be confused to falling in love if it experiences all the attributes. No, because the basic reason behind the attributes is the ecstatic happiness; it is most important for a person to feel that ecstasy before any other attributes can be felt by him. Thus, a person can make other person fall for him if the latter feels that ecstasy in the company of former. This ecstasy may be felt right at the moment two meet and also years after they had first met. Unfortunately again, the level of the ecstasy required differs from one person to another so it is very difficult to define the level precisely.
Gyanotsuk: If love is experienced in its attributes, why is it important for a person to be loved in return?
Guru: The feeling of love without a feeling of commitment from the partner is like a burning candle. The day wax is used up, darkness will prevail. Its a matter of security of this light - the ecstasy which the smitten has gotten himself used to it. Its like ensuring a life time supply of drugs. Which addict wouldn't like that?
Gyanotsuk: What is the relation between physical intimacy and love? Does physical act of love strengthens love?
Guru: There is no relation between physical closeness and love. Physical intimacy is not required for love to survive, or long distance relationships wouldn't be a reality and first love wouldn't be held sacred. Similarly, love is not a pre-requisite to physical intimacy or prostitutes would be out of business. Physical intimacy is a physical need and love is an emotional need. Its a misconception that physical intimacy with a person, one is in love with, strengthens love. If that is to be true, there wouldn't be breaks ups and divorces. Although the act of physical love is could be more satisfying experience between two people in love when looked as a whole and not as only physical. This act also gives the person in love more access and rights on to his beloved, which creates more happiness and hence more attachment to her.
Gyanotsuk: Why is the first love held sacred? What is so special about the first time?
Guru: First love is like a child in this world. Just as the child is oblivious to the harm it could bring him, lover is also carefree of the hurt the love could bring. Just as the child is oblivious to the heat of the fire, and is attracted towards the light; lover is ignorant of the the burns love causes while it basks in its warmth. Once the lover is hurt in love, it makes him very defensive towards every affectionate gesture later in life. The next time love finds him, the heart ache of the first affair never really lets him completely get involved with the same vigor. The very absence of that innocence in the later affairs make men and women remember their first one. They miss the innocent self they once were.
Love is a panacea. It can cure all the ills of the mind, personality and even body. Love is also a disease, it can make your mind, body and personality sick. It is the reason for achievement of all ends, its the reason for abandonment of all ends. Its the motivation to achieve, its the satisfaction which kills all other ambitions. When returned its heaven; when refused its hell. Love is both the reason to live and the reason to die. As my friend Dheeraj had once written in his poetry - How can something be trusted to be returned equally, which begins only with half a letter (love in Hindi is called pyar, which begins with half P - phonetically).
Guru: Love is not a singular concept and it is impossible to give a precise definition to it. It is something which is defined in its attributes. Similarly, there is no way to feel love. It is only felt in its attributes. It is the combined effect of these attributes which is called love.
One of the attributes of the love is ecstasy. Happiness, actually, is an event and not a state in itself - as it is transient. Love makes one experience the happiness so often that it becomes a state. This happiness ,thus, becomes satisfaction.
Another attribute of love is charity - not in the exact sense of the word but by the broader meaning of doing things for the happiness of the others. Other person's happiness makes the person in love happy himself and as a result the latter tries more often to be happy. An extreme form of this attribute is sacrifice.
Like a true animal, man doesn't want to share this happiness with any other person. From this attribute emerges the attribute of possessiveness and jealousy. This is also the reason why someone in love misses his beloved since he is not able to feel the same happiness.
Gyanotsuk: If love is only felt in its attributes, how does a person come to know if he is in love?
Guru: Love is not an emotion but a state. It is felt in its attributes which are passing emotions and for it to become a state, it needs its victim's permission before the person is smitten. In most cases the victim's permission depends on whether or not he is in a state to love someone. With one's permission when the person does fall in love, he is slowly addicted to the eternal ecstasy and without its dose, he starts feeling lost. That is when the person realizes that he has fallen in love.
Gyanotsuk: What happens when love is not returned to a person?
Guru: That is a state of extreme agony. The person looks for the happiness he had made himself addicted to. Although the the person smitten may have been addicted, its the beloved which has fanned the fire, perhaps in goodwill without any intentions. The beloved declines the love of the person smitten because they are not at the same level in terms of their addiction of each other.
Gyanotsuk: Even if the beloved is not in love, is the beloved still addicted to the smitten? Can this addiction lead to love?
Guru:Every person is addicted to every other person close to him. The only difference is how often they need each other. E.g. a girl and a boy are close friends. Girl can stay without seeing and talking to the boy for 3 days but the boy can stay for 5 days. In this case the girl is more addicted to the boy than the boy is to the girl. This addiction is the foundation of love. There is a threshold which should be crossed for a person to agree to himself that he is in love. Unfortunately, this is threshold is not the same for every person. Most people confess their love when their levels have been crossed. Ideally, confession should only be made when the beloved has breached her levels.
Gyanotsuk: If the confession was made before the levels of the beloved were breached and she declines, does the smitten stand another chance?
Guru: In case, the levels have not been breached, the decline should not be taken as the final frontier. The decline means that the levels have not been breached but could be breached in future. But for that to happen, normalcy of pre-confession times must be restored. The confession of the smitten and the eventual decline by the beloved does implicitly make her decide that she doesn't want to be in love. This decision to be changed, normalcy between them must be restored at the earliest and then equation must be developed further to make beloved cross her levels.
Gyanotsuk: Since everyone close to a person is addicted to the person, is it possible for the person to induce anyone to love him?
Guru:Yes and No. Yes because love is only experienced in its attributes. Thus human mind can be confused to falling in love if it experiences all the attributes. No, because the basic reason behind the attributes is the ecstatic happiness; it is most important for a person to feel that ecstasy before any other attributes can be felt by him. Thus, a person can make other person fall for him if the latter feels that ecstasy in the company of former. This ecstasy may be felt right at the moment two meet and also years after they had first met. Unfortunately again, the level of the ecstasy required differs from one person to another so it is very difficult to define the level precisely.
Gyanotsuk: If love is experienced in its attributes, why is it important for a person to be loved in return?
Guru: The feeling of love without a feeling of commitment from the partner is like a burning candle. The day wax is used up, darkness will prevail. Its a matter of security of this light - the ecstasy which the smitten has gotten himself used to it. Its like ensuring a life time supply of drugs. Which addict wouldn't like that?
Gyanotsuk: What is the relation between physical intimacy and love? Does physical act of love strengthens love?
Guru: There is no relation between physical closeness and love. Physical intimacy is not required for love to survive, or long distance relationships wouldn't be a reality and first love wouldn't be held sacred. Similarly, love is not a pre-requisite to physical intimacy or prostitutes would be out of business. Physical intimacy is a physical need and love is an emotional need. Its a misconception that physical intimacy with a person, one is in love with, strengthens love. If that is to be true, there wouldn't be breaks ups and divorces. Although the act of physical love is could be more satisfying experience between two people in love when looked as a whole and not as only physical. This act also gives the person in love more access and rights on to his beloved, which creates more happiness and hence more attachment to her.
Gyanotsuk: Why is the first love held sacred? What is so special about the first time?
Guru: First love is like a child in this world. Just as the child is oblivious to the harm it could bring him, lover is also carefree of the hurt the love could bring. Just as the child is oblivious to the heat of the fire, and is attracted towards the light; lover is ignorant of the the burns love causes while it basks in its warmth. Once the lover is hurt in love, it makes him very defensive towards every affectionate gesture later in life. The next time love finds him, the heart ache of the first affair never really lets him completely get involved with the same vigor. The very absence of that innocence in the later affairs make men and women remember their first one. They miss the innocent self they once were.
Love is a panacea. It can cure all the ills of the mind, personality and even body. Love is also a disease, it can make your mind, body and personality sick. It is the reason for achievement of all ends, its the reason for abandonment of all ends. Its the motivation to achieve, its the satisfaction which kills all other ambitions. When returned its heaven; when refused its hell. Love is both the reason to live and the reason to die. As my friend Dheeraj had once written in his poetry - How can something be trusted to be returned equally, which begins only with half a letter (love in Hindi is called pyar, which begins with half P - phonetically).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)