Its all about Money.....

People everywhere have been bitten by the money bug. Everywhere you look, money is the king. Knowledge, education and even morality have taken a back seat. The person with the big bucks is more respected than the PhD. graduate who may have worked even harder for his knowledge.

Even more disturbing is that this trend is becoming a norm pretty fast. People have started to think of education as secondary and nearly worthless and a waste of time. They are inspired from success stories like Microsoft and Google, but forget that these companies are works of masterminds and technological wizards who possess uncanny business and technological abilities which they acquired through years of hard work. Even they agree that there is no substitute for knowledge and education.

The current economic slowdown has also contributed to this trend. People everywhere are trying to find some sort of secondary income and so they start up with their online stores and some other things like that. In the midst of all this, it is knowledge that suffers.

Knowledge and intellectuality lead to monetary plenty, and not the other way around. Hence no one should place importance to money over knowledge and education. Without knowledge, any civilization cannot be rich in any sense of th word.

Pro Choice or Pro Life?

The question whether a person is pro choice or pro life is raised almost regularly during election season, and this is a topic of hot debate during the presidential elections. The candidates' positions on such issues are seemingly very important to the general public in making their voting decision.

However, I want to give this a broader scope. Generally, the question of being pro choice or pro life is raised only in regards to the central issue of abortion. Let us broaden the approach and then try and see if we can understand what we mean by pro choice or pro life.

Not all of us are vegetarians in this world. Many of us consume meat in some form or other. Even the vegetarians don't seem to push the non-vegetarians to stop eating meat, nor do they resort to legal means to do so. There are no laws that prevent killing of animals for the purpose of human consumption. Also, there are laws that allow human beings to hunt down and kill animals for their pleasure, albeit in a restricted time of the year and a restricted area. All these things show that we human beings believe that we are the most advanced species on the planet and that the sanctity of human life is far more important than the sanctity of animal life.

The problem I have with all this is that the people who say that they are pro life and take out rallies and processions to express their feelings vehemently, are the same people who would hunt down animals and fish for their pleasure and food. This is a sort of unequal and unethical treatment that should also be illegal. Such dual standards should be opposed. There is no way that we can't allow a woman to abort a baby when we can allow the ruthless killing of countless cattle every single day. It has been already argued that there is a loss of life in both cases. There is no proof that a cow's life is less important than a baby's. Surprisingly, the same people who clim to be advocates of the pro life policy, have no problem in giving death penalty to prisoners. The logic of such an approach baffles me.

Who are we to decide if one life is more valuable than another? In such a situation, it seems only prudent to treat all life as equally valuable and give each an equal chance of growth. Alternately, we can treat each case on its own merit. Either way, we have to do away with the current system of double standards and come up with an ethically and morally sound system.

Hopelessness

What I want to talk about in this post may be thought of as something to frown upon: something too pessimistic and just not right. But I urge you to just read through with an open mind and then post your comments.

We all know that people go through good and bad times in their lives. No one bothers to think about the past or the future while one is enjoying the good times. The present is a friend of only the happy individual. To a person afflicted with the disease called sadness, the present is the first deserter. A sad person only looks up to the future and remembers his past.

This is where the notion of hope sets in. It is hope that is supposed to get people through their bad times. But isn't hope just refocusing a sad person's energies away from the present? There is no guarantee that this hope will push the person out of his sad state. While we all know that sadness is as much a stat of mind as happiness is, it is possible that hope is just another state of mind that will try and get you out of that sadness.

I think hopelessness is better than hope in my opinion. Hope reduces the rational thinking ability of human beings. It is hopelessness that gives a person more rationality and critical thinking ability than hope does. If humanity changes its notion of looking at hopelessness, we all may be better off altogether.

Ultimately, hope offers a person an opportunity to delve into the future and the past, while the present is being wasted. Hopelessness, on the other hand, will go towards actually bring out the real solution. I know that this post was not as smooth as the other ones, and I will try and I will try and re post If it did make sense, please post a comment.

Legality Vs. Morality: Who is higher?

There is a small inner circle of people in this colossal expanse known as mankind. The members of this inner circle are the thinking and rationalizing minds that shape the overall character of humanity. Because of the physical boundaries that divide people from each other, it has become the government's responsibility to shape the character of its peoples. However, the rules that are devised by the government are done so in such a way that they would uplift the character of the lowly ones, so to speak.

This is good in a way, as the government hopes to improve the overall character and morals of the lower grade people. But in time, what has happened is that the collective character of the country's peoples has degraded. There may be many reasons for this, but the one particular reason according to me is the notion that people consider the legality as their morality. In other words, their own morals have turned out to be down-graded to just topics of so-called philosophical discussion and they tend to try to follow or - in many cases -bypass the legal system.

In my opinion, people should try and look at their own morals and see how they compare to the current legal standards. If your morals are higher, well and good. But if the morals are lower than the legal standards, you have some catching up to do. It is imperative that everyone tries to go higher and higher on a moral path, rather than looking up to the legal standards and be stagnant at that level.

To give an example, consider the case of music piracy. We all know that music piracy is illegal and fraudulent. Still, we find many people engaging in this act. The government has tried to set up rules which should prevent people from committing such crimes. But people don't think that this legality is only a part of the higher morality that should govern all humanity. If only these people realize that they are in effect robbing someone of his/her livelihood, they may want to reconsider their motives. However, this is a sort of paradigm shift that may e hard to achieve.

The one quick-fire way of achieving higher moral grounds is to consider each action carefully. If an action is illegal, but you feel that it is morally true, then further scrutiny is needed. Mercy-killing is one such example. It is an illegal activity, but there are people who think that it is morally correct. In my opinion, the right thing to do is not to simply follow a personal morality, but also make efforts to make the morality legal as well. However, if something is immoral but legal, then naturally one must not take such an action. There are many examples of that as well. The other two scenarios ( moral and legal; immoral and illegal) are pretty straightforward to follow.

I must mention though that this path of constantly striving towards a higher morality is not as practical as it seems. The ideals are always easier to theorize than to practice. But i they were easy to implement then the world would not be in such a state as it is now. Although the betterment or worsening of this world and whether it is possible or not is another matter of discussion altogether.

The Good, The Bad and the Ugly

No, this is not a comment on the famous Clint Eastwood western and nor is it an ode to the background score. I am trying to get to the real good, bad and ugly things that we see and feel around us ( although I am not sure about the 'real' part).


Mankind is rife with dissimilarities and diversities on all levels. Diversity by itself is a very good thing , as uniformity means cessation and eventual destruction. The theory of Evolution bears ample testimony to that claim. This importance of diversity is seldom disputed in the scientific world. So we are clear about the fact that diversity is essential to the perpetuation of mankind, and indeed life itself.

However, in the relatively small social human groups, unity or similarity is given more importance and the all-important diversity is looked upon with contempt. Various ideas have been instrumental in creating this concept of unity in the people, like patriotism, religion, politics, language, customs, rituals and beliefs, to name a few. That all these ideas have been very effective in maintaining the true identity of various societies at various times, is an indisputable fact.

From here onwards, the difficulties begin. It is easy to mistake that when something has worked in a small cluster, it will do so in a bigger environment in the same way. Of all the uniting ideas mentioned above, religion has become the most controversial one. That is where the blog title starts taking shape. It is because religion has been the uniting and dividing social force, both at the same time. I know this oxymoron seems strange, but this is what has been happening. A relatively small group of people are inspired by the teachings of an individual. Fully convinced, they set about preaching the ideals which they think are worthy of following. In time, a major section of the society is convinced that their religion or faith is the best. Observing the other faiths from their 'high' spiritual status, they begin thinking that mankind must be cleansed from the evil and downright ugly religious practices, simply due to the fact that they are different from their own religious practices. Such spiritual cleansing has been done with impunity by both Christians and Muslims alike. Also, this 'cleansing' is done by people thinking themselves to be the chosen ones and that believing that they are following the wish of God.

However, plain simple logic and a look in history proves that this goal of universalization of religion is impossible to achieve. Let us assume that a certain religion or faith does actually succeed in making the entire mankind follow just one religion, by whichever mean necessary. This was tried very forcefully by the catholic faith as well as Islam. However, the result of this exercise as quite unexpected. The very principles which united people before, had become serious dividing points. Christianity and Islam got divided from just individual orders to religions having multiple sects, each believing they know the correct version of their Lord's teachings.

Mankind looks upon things relatively, but mistakes this relativity for absoluteness. This significant mistake leads to assumptions of Good, Bad and Ugly. One fails to realize that the reality may be quite different from the relativity that on sees.

Non Resistance

It is human nature to resist against the various forces that coerce him/her into doing things forcibly. This can be seen from the minor defiance to bloody wars and revolutions. The sole aim of resistance is to bring about change quickly, preferably for the better. This resistance can be individual or collective, but its attributes are similar. The consequences of a successful resistance are well observed throughout history, thus rendering it the seal of approval. But all this is in the realm of society. In the spiritual realm there is a strong advocacy for non-resistance. "Resist Not Evil" is the adage used frequently. What is the reason behind this apparent contradiction? The dilemma seems to be "To Resist Or Not To Resist", to take a cue from Shakespeare.

Resistance is important in the society. To bring about positive and beneficial change among the populace, a strong and effective resistance is vital. The independence of various countries would not have been possible without some sort of resistance to the existing forms of government. In such instances, resistance is a widespread and far reaching movement. Consequently, the immediate and far reaching effects of resistance can not be predicted. Rather, it is like a loose cannon, ready to blow up any time in any direction without notice. This unpredictability notwithstanding, social resistance is an effective method.

Resistance is not spoken of fondly in spirituality; non resistance is the norm here. Here is where the difficulty arises. If one thinks upon resistance in spirituality, the first item to consider is the ability to resist. For example, non violence is harder to adhere to for a physically strong person. Likewise, only the person capable of resistance can practice non resistance. Next comes the outcome of non resistance. This aspect seems even more complex to realize. The idea to let things take their own course does not seem to be very promising. It is human nature to take things under his/her own control and keep them that way. But non resistance goes in exactly the opposite way.

Upon closer scrutiny, however, a different picture emerges. Non resistance is one of the most important and powerful tools for spiritual expansion that we can have. Spiritual advancement is possible by curbing the various human instincts, one of which is resistance. I am not saying that human instincts are vile or wrong. I am only stating that they don't serve any purpose in spirituality. So non resistance is a sort of a spiritual exercise also. Thus it is a means as well as an end in itself. This is consistent with the theme of spirituality.

The Meaning Of Success

Recently, one of my good friends finished her PhD. thesis, and a bug has been twirling inside me ever since. I have always wondered what we think of success and achievement. What exactly is the meaning of achieving something? Is it merely a fulfillment of one's goal or something else......something more?

The root of the question is... from where exactly does this goal emerge? I opine that most of the goals that we chase are either set by others, or even worse, not worth pursuing at all. So this blindfolded and single minded passion for achievement may all go down the drain if not focused in the right direction. But right now, we will assume that the goal is worth pursuing, for reasons to be discussed in future blogs( hopefully).

Each and every aspirant who is laboring towards success knows that the path is almost always difficult. But that seems to be the beauty of it. We are happy even when we are exhausted to our own limits. To take an example, say a sculptor working hard to make his statue sees a glimmer of happiness when he visualizes that the statue will come to fruition, even though it may take serious hard work to get there. Also, the happiness felt after reaching the goal is not just due to the fact that its over, but also due to the hardships endured along the way.

So we see that it is the work done towards the goal that makes success so sweet, and not just the achievement. As always, other views are welcome..

Atheism and Science

This age is hailed as the age of technology: the age where man has pushed and ultimately crossed the very boundaries of possibilities and turned them into reality. Man's enterprising spirit and desire for knowledge have led to unparalleled innovations in all fields of life and, if cryogenic freezing is made possible, even death. These inventions and discoveries have induced further doubts in the mind of the so called learned people regarding the necessity and the efficacy of religion in their lives. Science is very busy these days in questioning and disproving the age old religious beliefs.

But is this atheistic concept or belief the sole reality? The reasons for such a belief seem to be pretty interesting. Almost, if not all, the scientists that claim themselves to be atheists have been - dare I say - 'disillusioned' by the two prime monotheistic religions they they belong to: Christianity and Judaism. If we take the Nobel Prize as the highest symbol for excellence in the scientific world, then most Nobel Prize winners are either Christians or Jews. The other major purely monotheistic religion, Islam, has had 11 winners, whereas Hinduism, the most varied of all religions, has had 6 ( I could not find any other Buddhist Nobel Prize Winner other than the Dalai Lama). Now if most of the so-called geniuses believe that there is no God in the Universe and that science in one form or the other is sufficient for explaining all of it's workings, then they are surely mistaken.

A scientist's mind is conditioned to work on facts and facts only. The scientist will not accept any other point of view that contradicts his/her own logic and reasoning. Using these weapons of logic and reasoning, the modern scientists are busy bringing down the entire structure of religion. But this is where they are wrong. Each and every scientific theory stands true only as long as the experiments confirm it's truth. The moment one experiment yields results that are contradictory to the theory, the theory is banished and a search for the new one begins. Now imagine that God is one such theory and the various religions are it's various experiments. If a scientist who does not know even of the various experiments on which the theory has been tested, he can't say that the theory does not give satisfactory results. Similarly, if a person does not know about religion then he can't deny the existence of God. He may not accept His existence as well, but the denial is equally wrong.

So if a person is dissatisfied o unimpressed by a system of religion, he has to continue his search by other ways and means until he is 100% sure of the truth of his belief. In the scientists' case, they have an advantage of already heading into that direction. Each and every scientist is pushing the limits of science in his own way, only unconscious of the fact that he may stumble upon the greatest and simplest truth along the way: Self Realization. Only after this will the truce between science and religion be forever reached.

Needs, Wants and Desires

First I would like to specify what I mean by the three. Needs are the things that we simply cannot live without, or at least we think so. Wants are at a higher level than needs, meaning that we can live without them but they make our lives easier. Desires form the highest level, and I see them as things that we only dream or fantasize about. To take an example, transportation is my need, I want a car and I desire a Bentley.

The question is: Why am I rambling about these three in my post? Because I find that everyone can achieve anything that one needs, whereas the wants and desires in what I mean by them are unachievable. I am not sounding pessimistic. On the contrary this is an idealistic view. When a person's need is fulfilled, ideally that person should be satisfied. However, what happens is that one satisfaction of a need puts the person on a road to fulfill other wants and desires also. The only way to fulfill them is by masquerading them as needs ad then making a case for their fulfillment. This seems to be one of the many predicaments that have befallen the human race.

But, as they say, the good comes with the bad, and vice verse. There is a way to use this aspect of human nature in a beneficial way. The highest goal is self realization. Yet, so few men and women achieve it: why? It is because self realization was their need and not a mere want or desire. It is conceivable that they also placed this ideal as a want or desire in the beginning, but soon found that self realization was their one and only need. Similarly, if I am to obtain self realization, I must need it like I need air; no, even more acutely than that. Then and only then can I achieve self realization.

And, as I said earlier, we always achieve what we need.......

Religious Fanatics

Every sport needs them. Every band loves them. Politicians would kill to have some of them. Fanatics, or fans as they are commonly called, seem to be the yardstick of peoples' success- the more you have the more successful you are. They are instrumental in pushing people to the very top. But today I am not talking about the soccer hooligans or Rock lovers, I am talking about the more radical and seemingly dangerous ones- the religious fanatics.

Our history tells us that nothing has drawn more swords and resulted in bloodbaths than religious fanaticism. And all the major religions have their fair share of such men and women. The reports regarding the Madressas in the Middle East and Pakistan are as discomforting as the evidence of hatred amongst Israelis towards Palestine. The 'over-zealous' nature of Hindu hardliners is commensurate with the forceful conversions by 'missionaries' in India. Such facts cannot help but make us wonder as to the mindset of such people. There has to be something that is grotesquely wrong in such hate-mongers who believe themselves to be the torchbearers of their faith. It becomes our responsibility as rational peace-loving individuals to weed out religious fanaticism.

An insight into the mind of a fanatic reveals that he/she has an undaunted faith in his/her religion. This is really commendable in this day and age. However, the problem lies in their assumption that anyone who does not conform to their religious views is an infidel. Certain clerics of, who want to achieve their own objectives, plant the seeds of hatred in the impressionable young minds since childhood. By their late teens, these men and women become lean, mean killing machines. Just a promise of heaven for them and hell for their victims is enough for them to fire bullets or wear explosives and blow themselves up without any regard for their fellow man.

It is inevitable that we seek a solution for this menace. We need to know that the war is not against fanatics- it is against fanaticism. The peace-loving and tolerant people have to realize that just ignoring these movements as mere mishaps and anomalies will not cut it. Each person has to make an effort on his/her part to understand the other religions as well. And listening to CNN or FOX will not suffice. Significant and unbiased individual research is what is needed most. Then and only then can the idea of universal religious tolerance gain fruition. I know it seems to be a very daunting and almost impossible task. But if we don't try we won't ever know if it is really that hard or not.

Socialism and Individualism: Antagonistic or Complementary ?

From the numerous number of "isms" that are prevalent in the English language, the two most controversial and seemingly opposed ones are socialism and individualism. Socialism, and its violent cousin communism, place the state higher than an individual. However, individualism has placed the individual at the apex, paying no heed to the needs of society at large. China is the leading example of relative success of socialism; USA is the same of individualism. Still, the question remains about the surety of success of either one.

Throughout the history of mankind, it has been proven that man' s wants are limitless. Each and every person has a desire to obtain what he considers is the best. But these wants always seem to be increasing exponentially, whereas the means to obtain them are scarce. This is the root of all struggle between men. And any society is nothing but a collection of individuals: it paints a collective picture of the vast majority. Hence, each society faces the same problem of trying to satisfy the peoples' unlimited demands with the limited resources available.

Socialism tries to solve this problem by removing all the social and sometimes even religious Independence of the people. It wants to ensure that all are treated fairly. In order to maintain an all round equality in society, there is a flow of resources from the rich to the poor. But it has been seen that the poor are still poor and the rich remain rich by using their clout and through corruption. The hapless middle class eventually turns into the poor as well. There results a pure lack of effort to do any work. Such a society will not be able to sustain itself for long.

Individualism, on the other hand, puts the onus of everything upon the individual. Each person is responsible for his betterment. There is a heightened sense of competition among the people of the same society. The proponents of this system make a case that this system is rewarding only for the worthy, and thus there is an extra desire to work. However, even this system has its pitfalls. The rich, owing to their existing wealth and access to resources, tend to get a better chance to realise their dreams and hence are bound to get richer. Of course, their 'connections' are ever present to aid them in case of any troubles. The poor don't generally have such opportunities, and hence, by the law of averages, are less likely to achieve their dreams. Even this social system is bound to become corroded and eventually crumble to pieces.

The solution to either of these systems seems to be a hybrid variety of the two. The state should adopt socialistic means to ensure that every individual gets an equal and adequate amount of resources, which will lay a foundation on which one can work towards the realization of one's dreams. There should be special concessions made to the underprivileged sections of the society in such a way that they learn to become and remain independent. The entire society has to go under a paradigm shift of sorts. People need to understand the fact that the State is there to lay the groundwork for success, not for spoon feeding the good-for-nothing ones. Meanwhile, the rich need to be made aware of their duties as fellow citizens to help raise the overall economic and social status of the underprivileged. This hybrid of a socialist government and an individualist society may just do the trick. I hope the statesmen of China and the USA are reading this.......