Think

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

I am sure you never have thought of this, but nevertheless we all do it. WHY ?

Many a times we deal with the question of ‘why am I here?’ and we have dealt with it so many times that now we usually have some answer to it. But have we ever given a thought from parent’s shoes? To paraphrase, do we ever think that why do I want to have kids? What am I going to get by having kids?

My focus is not to challenge the reader and try to convince him not to have kids; but is mainly to thought provoke him to think before he acts! Procreation is a beautiful gift of nature and entails much more than just a life. So are we mocking this great majestic process by rendering it objective less?

The first and foremost reason that strikes any conscience mind is, to continue lineage. But let us take a second look at it. Even before actually deciding to have kids, do we really think that ‘I want to continue my lineage and so I need to have kids’. I don’t think so. Besides, if that was the sole purpose, once you have your first kid you would stop. But no, we crave for having two or three. Anyways for now let us accept it as a genuine reason but is that enough? Is it not too materialistic and render you selfish? Just to continue your lineage, you are going to bring one or more lives to life! Get some better reason!

Given some more time, you may say that getting to see part of me growing gives me a sense of satisfaction. I want to see a life growing and control/manage its growth the best possible way I think. Good enough; any one would agree to it, but again I still think that this reason is also selfish. I mean if tomorrow your kid asks you, ‘Dad why did you bring me in this world?’, assuming you to be an honest father, would you answer him this!? Just to satisfy my hunger of seeing a life growing I bought my kid in this world! Well then let me cross my line and ask you this, tomorrow when your kid is old enough and decides to commit a suicide, why would you have a problem? You have been served the purpose, now let that life end! NO, certainly not, isn’t it? So there is something more behind the objective of this procreation. What is it?

I have a few words of experience to share (, though not of self-experience). Having your kids makes you a better human. The kind of relationship you share with your children, with no other person can you have it! By being delighted with their accomplishments, the kind of charm that you get is simply not describable. That is when you know what is meant by being happy. When a tear roll down the chick of that gorgeous face, you want to bring the whole world down to his feet! The sense of passion you have then is superlative. When that young soul is in pain, you wish only if you could replace yourself with him and free him of this pain! The sense of patronizing that you have then is unbeatable. So in short, you get to understand the human emotions in a much better way. Now if you see any other person in pain, you know how it feels to be in pain! You are more willing to help that person out of his agony. But again, isn’t it beating the same path of selfishness!? Is there anything more?

I think that I want to have kinds to make this world a better place to live! I know the purpose of my existence, ‘to change something in this world to good effect’ and I am certain that changing ‘something’ is not going to help the greater good. So I want to have someone by my side who can carry forward my work, but not anyone, someone in whom I Believe. Someone who holds same values as of mine and perceives things in (my) right way. Such a person can only be my child, none other could even qualify! Now that’s what gives purpose to this new life also. I feel like I am honoring the process of procreation. The above mentioned points are all valid points but those are all fallouts of this procreation process and are rewards to me for working towards greater good!

I might as well add that not necessarily everyone will think about the objective, but now once you have some thoughts over it, I feel you will be better motivated and directed. Many things happen in life, nature has given us brain to think and act. The act of deducing the purposes is left to humans and therefor we must know why are we doing something.

After thinking about this, I am at least a little more aware. Now I know what do I get by having kids and how do I help greater good. I have the theme and perspective about the process of having kids. Don’t you?

Monday, October 17, 2005

Many times I think how self-engulfed are we! EVERY Single thought, especially wish that comes to our mind has that 'I' in it. All of them are centred around us.

What we do is, we put curtains all around us and start projecting our future image on it. No wonder what we see is just 'I'. We never try and extend our hand to draw that curain. There lies the whole world out there who needs things which are superfluous to you as their basic neccesity.

We always feel that 'I am not yet in the position from where I can help others; in near future I will have some 'spare' time (rarely we say money) and I will reach out'. But hey, no one ever gets that spare time (and money ofcourse). To help others itself means that even though you are busy, you take out some time and do the needful. Who would not help others if he has enough extra time and money; so going out of your way and being there for people is what is more appreciated. A real pleasure lies in that.

What say?

Sunday, October 16, 2005

Ritualistic Vs Intellectual fatih in God.

Yesterday I was discussing with my friend, is it easy to follow retualistic approach to beleive in God or intellectual approach? And then we got engulfed into a full fedged discussion. It is well known that definition of 'easy' varies from one point of view to another. So what follows now is just the justificaion of both point of views.

It is obvious that people who follow ritualistic approach, strongly beleive that God exists and they are hard bent on it. They feel that following rituals they can be near to God. Now from this viewpoint, intellectual way is hard to follow. Mainly because that approach does not garuntee that it will conclude with the existance of God. So ritualistic people will find it hard to follow the other way.

Parallel argument works from intellectual view point also. They will find intellectual way easy and ritualistic approach hard. These people are open minded, they are not bent on existance of God. If their intellect reaches to conclusion that God exists it is fine with them, if it concludes that God does not exists they are fine with it too. But now ritualistic approach assumes and beleives that God exists which is not aggreable to intellectual people and so they would find ritualistic approach hard.

Sunday, July 17, 2005

Violence in conscience?

Todays topic is really interesting. As I am writting this as my thoughts are flowing I am not sure how I will structure it. So let me hit the ground....
Yesterday I was travelling with one of my friend. As we both are involved with HSS, we got into some discussion. The topic was, is it really harmful to spread fire-brand patriotic songs? The part of this discussion, rather I dare say the core logic of this argument can discuss separately. Which is what I am going to do. So here it is; is Bhaktimarga or khashma being followed to extreme as to hide your cowardnace?
We all know that Gandhiji's Ahimsa has been mis-interpreted. It has been taken to an extreme by their opponents. Gandhiji never said, or never intended to say that Ahimsa should be followed when it creates danger to the very existance of core issue. NO. If its the time to hit, you SHOULD (or MUST) hit. By Ahimsa, we try our best to procrastinate(?) Himsa if its unavoidable and eliminate it if it can be. So the point here is, person who has received nobel prize for peace, even he was for himsa when its the time.
Now people who are for Ahimsa, are of two types. One part is, people who understand the argument above and other are Cowards and who just use part of the above argument to hide their Cowardnace. Nishank said that today our youth has become so much lame and bhaktimarga follower that they have lost all their fire(save militrary). They would always give some spiritual-line reasons to not to fight. There are so many people committing atrocities on them (muslims and christans being main two) but they would not speak a word unless atrocities are commited against them personally. They would render complete ignorance first, if are asked why they dont retaliate they would throw some spiritual thoughts and turn a blind eye to it. This happens because the fire inside today's youth has died completely. They are afraid of fighting. So everyone is following bhaktimarga, rendering extremes of tolerence.
Honestly, this is serious thought that turn me inwards to think! I am one such above described tipical person. I dont like to fight, but I dont know, I just dont 'like' fighting or I can not fight and so I dont like to fight. So am I just being non-violent person or am I covering my cowardnace. To this effece these are the thoughts those came to my mind,
Well there exists people those probably can not fight, need not mean that they are coward. They are supporters of fighting when things go to extreme, but they themsleves are not of that gener. It is because they are too consious in their mind of what they are doing. Beleive me, to kill some one you CAN NOT be in complete conscience. What do you think, a soldier killing someone, if taken outside to a seren place, given enough food and sleep, would still think of killing that person? NO. His fire has died down by that time, and his conscience has taken over. So there are some people whose conscience is so strong that they can never loose it. They always keep on judging each of their act in various aspects, and this firebrand approach in a peaceful society, which they ultimately are hoping for, does not fit in there. It is disapproved of. So their conscince will never approve of it, as an effect they can never approve of himsa. But can this be rendered as cowardness? For that probably we need to comprehend the meaning of cowardness.
Marriam-webster dictionary defines 'Coward' word as 'one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity'. Do you still think that I am (as a representative of those kind of people) a coward? I am not running away from danger, I am facing it but with our hurting anyone. Yeh, it may sound ludicridous to someone that I even would not think of hurting my enemy; but yes that is what it is. I would try to convince him and try to put him on right track, but for that I would not chnage my track. Its not for love of my track, its for beleving in my track of conscience. But then when do I fight? well never, but I also do not disapprove of fighting, yes fighting should be done, but not inside house! at the border, inside court, inside jurisdiction limits. Otherwise my conscince blindens me to observe any difference between me and my enemy!
A little more thought makes me to agrre that real coward person can completely hide himself safely under these thoughts, but to think that all those who are of this line of thinking are coward, is blantant shallow thinking!
OK. Now after speaking 'in for' of this school of thoughts, here is some different prespective. This view grows from personal level to society level. Whatever I said in above paragraphs makes lot more sense when we consider that at individual level. When instead of fighting for socienty when you are fighting for yourself, no one would call above person a coward. He is just too wise a person. If out of some personal issues, if someone tries to kill me, I would not retaliate him by fighting with him. I would take refuge to law. Which is wise, isnt it? So this line of thinking suits at individual level, cause at that level The Only person affected by, or person who has to bear and suffer is only you, yourself. But when you try and apply this level of thinking to represent society, it probably does not fit in. Because there its not only you who is going to suffer, with you there are millions of your bretheren who are going to suffer. Kind of pateince you alone can show can never be shown by the society. I dont know if showing that kind of tolerence is wrong on part of society, but I am certain that its hard to be shown. So it is quite obvious that people would not approve of this attitude for society. But on the similar lines, it can not be called a coward attitude right?
I am at loss of words to explain, if this is not cowardness then what it is? Mainly for the reason that pure cowardness can easily be hidden by extending the arms of above theory. I say extending becuase this theory by itslef does not suppoer cowardness, but it would take a much well read and studied person to put that theory in words and defend it which can not be extended to include cowardness. Am I making any sense here ?
Also it is important that when we say that whole of nation is follwing the khashama marga, and being non-violent; we need to think twice as to where we are and how much is our dataset to make this statement. When you are into well educated people, its hard to find like minded people, mostly because everyone has his own tools to sharpen his thoughts. Every one now knows 'it ka jawab patthar ya it se dene main kuch fayada nahi hota hain'! It harms (donesnt matter if it harms to you or your enemy, but it harms)! But this does not mean that of society is of that attitude. There is also enough of violence shown by Hindu community against attrocities. So if you being well educated and elite of society, finds that there exists people around you who are following 'Khshama marga', realize that they are also elite people, and does not judge that complete society is following them. You also have enough followers.
So let me know what thoughts now come to your mind. I may be lacking somewhere, so you might want to add to it, or you might find some flaws in this. So please do let me know!

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Swamiji's visit.

Namaskar,
Today I am writting after a long time. So is the occasion.
Today I got the first chance to be with some swamiji. Swami Tejomayananda (who is heading Chinmay mishan) visited this week to Iowa City. He gave a talk on Geeta. I attended that talk. which was then followed by some singing program and then an musical instrument show (sarod, if you want to know that). All program were just great.
I had an opportunity to listen to Swami Chinmayananda's talk on Geeta and beleive me that was really impressive. Swami Tejomayananda is his follower and succesesor. I am afraid to say, but I did not find his talk that influencing as I found of Swami .Chinmay. May be this is because he was constrained to put in whole Geeta in just 2 hrs. and I can understand that it makes NO SENSE! But any ways...... Its always easy to criticise.
Today he was scheduled to come to Milind's place. I was there too. Triying to help family to get ready for the event. He arrived at 12.15PM and then was sitting with us for a while, discussing general thing. There were around 15 people. Then he had his lunch, and came back to sitting arrangement where we did little photo-session. That was the time when I was really taken a back. It was my time to take a photograph with him, I sat besided him and Milind took our phto. By that time he asked me as to what do I do to which I answered that I am pursuing my masters in computer sceince. Guess what now? To this, he made an (im)pertinent comment, 'Why people come to USA? We have IITs back in India! whats the deal'. I WAS REALLY TAKEN A BACK! Thin this, besides you sit a man who is leading an organization which has its centers in almost every country, whose follower is probably in first 10 of world; and he makes such a comment. I am not worried about what to answere, I could have answere enough to make him shut, but I could not do that; mainly out of the restpect that I was bound to pay. I did not this man before, so I was just gathering respect for him, and he just tried to threw my plans completely off! hmmm.....
Then he left. He had his second session on Geeta today evening, but I could not make to it for I had to to work at my intern company. I did not skip it because of the noon insident, I actually want to forget it and am just venting it out here. I hope it will not be in there for long. Well and it doesnt really matter cause, I dont hink I will be seeing him anytime soon nowafter.
On another note as I already mentioned this was my first time that I was seeing some swamiji so nearly. I was really amazed to see how people were devoted to him. He was a tipical swamiji, wearing all those sanyasi clothes.
Well honestly I am watching a movie right now, 'parenting', so please excuse me. I hate this, but I have to discontinue my blog. Sorry but its good than writting something scrape.
Hari oam!

Friday, July 01, 2005

Subtle movie effects.

Namaskar,
Yesterday I watched a movie named 'Silsilay'. What can I say about that movie? Cenmatography was quite good but apart from that I am still wondering what else was good in it? Music scores a point but nothing beyond that. So in all this movie gets thumbs down from me. Thats not all though; it provoked too many thoughts in my mind. Let me try to put them on epaper here.
So what is this movie - it flows as 3 separate stories. From the beginning I had this conception (now I must say mis-conception) that movies generally try to send some social message across or do some comedy or expatiate on some debate. But this movie does none of this, on the contrary it tries to harm the society norms. How ?
Well, there is one dialog in this movie, which is to the effect that 'now a days none of good boys are vergin at the time of marriage'. Now think for a while, this being a movie they enjoy the freedom of having baseless dialogs. But our audience will not buy this, their sub-concious mind will subtely accept this. Whats the fallout? well next time some teen-age boy gets a chance to get laid off, why would he consider twice? I am not saying that there does not exist people who can judge right and wrong, but if this, i would say, 'immoral' dialogs are hammered on you, somewhere at the back of you mind you start accepting it as a reality. Initially it will decrease down your confidence of you beleiving your opinion and then it will slowly start changing it.
Now lets add another view to this, who is the audience here? Practically speaking, people who work dont really find time to see such small banner movies! So who is left, mostly young students! they are in their teens or some early twenty's where their mind is yet to acquire maturity. So at such an edge if they get to see these kind of movies god knows what will heppen! There also is another dialog in this movie wherein one side star says to actrees, 'what are you going to do with your verginity? keep your verginity in show-case?' Now what a sick dialog this is! I mean lets say that this world is not that truthful and for a moment assume that the first dialog that I talked about is true, but even then do you really have to explicitly mention it and make a point out of it? To my surprise, all these stories kind of end successfully. Now isnt this mis-guiding? Arent these directors mis-guiding the society?
So who is going to stop them? and how ? So this is the time when fundamentalists comes handy. They dont directly help the scenario, but the try to counter balance the society. If society sways to west for a long, they will make it to sway to east for a while! I dont independantly approve of fundamentalist groups, but in combination to what current young society is being exposed to, I would say we need them. Otherwise if you be moderate, your voice will never even be heard!
Please let me know what you think. Do not forget to add comment to this..
Hari Oam.

Saturday, June 25, 2005

Lets get ready for a shock!

Namaskar,
Ok, today I am going to try to present what I discussed with Anup. Its kind of really shocking. Let me cut long story short..
We landed up in the discussion about vegetarianism in Hinduism. I knew that Hindu vedas dont explictly talk about veg. diate. (I myself have not read vedas, so this is what I gather from sources, if you know some perticular references please feel free to add them here). So My conjecture is, even hindus before used to have non-veg. diate. Because think very rationally, we know that long time before there were tribes, and every tribe in the world (detached from the religion view) used to hunting. What could be the purpose behing hunting ? There could be some other purposes, but yes eating was one of them. Besides, as we know Hinduism supports different sects (I would not use word 'caste' here for its contemporary meaning gives a different shade to hinduism), out of which Brahmins were/are the ones who were strict followers of it. For a while lets assume that they were the ones who were vegetarians, but then there could be some on the fringe people who could be eating meat! You can proove it but then you can not even disproove it, can you? I am taking a very unbiased stand here, till this point I am not influenced by what Anup told me. It is quite possible that hindus (or part of hindus for that matter) used to take non-veg. intake.
But then, enters Muslims (and here is where Anups thoughts enters). They eat meat, and they eat meat vigorously. So brahmins got afraid and they were afraid of this trend getting spread in hindus; and so they started broadcasting this hinduism 'non-vegetarianism' concept. Now no one knew vedas better than these guys, so people beleived them and started following Veg. diate.
But now comes the interesting twist. We know that in old days people used to sacrifise animals to godesses. But now if majority is turning to Veg. diate how and why would they kill animals! So they invented this, they will break a coconut! Shocking isnt it? Lets try analyzing it;
We break coconut whenever anything new starts, why would we start something new by breaking something as pious as coconut? Coconut resembles head strucuture, which makes quite sense of killing someone by squashing it! If you are doing a satyanarayan pooja, you dont break coconut, you just offer it to god, but then if you are planning for a picnic then you would break it! Whats the difference between that ? Its interesting anlogy, think once again.
I know its hard to imagine it this way, but lets for a while keep our values and everything aside and try to think this way. This argument is not absurd. Its a studied argument. I also need to investigate this more and find out what is the real meaning of breaking a coconut! What I expressed just now is what we discussed today.
Please, if you feel that you know more, OR if you have any valid point to foil this theory; please log it as comment. I am as eager as you are to foil this theory. I myself would not like to beleive this theory, but I dont want to be biased. So I throw the table open for discussion.
Hari Oam!