A chain-mail, now nearly two years old, came from a friend, which showed pathetic pictures of baby seals being killed in Norway in the name of sports. I googled for it and found many links, the following being the top. What follows in the blog is the letter I wrote to my group of friends. I have edited it somewhat after that.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1318571,00.html
(Everybody here! Please don't take my comments personally!)
Whenever blood oozes for anything non-essential (like sports, or
culinary taste), there will be cry for help. And then there will be
economic and ecological arguments posed. Sometimes, even religious arguments are posed! And then, our silly conscience
will be appeased. Such is our sense of ethics, which can't speak for itself. On the one hand, it gets outraged and emotional when faced with naked pictures of attrocities. On the other, it gets weak, when faced with temptations. And to hide its weakness, it takes shelter of anything and everything -- economics, ecology, biology and even religion ('HE has said that it's OK to eat flesh.').
For once, think of it. Seals aren't an endangered
species. And why the Norwegian government has permitted this seems to make some economic sense too. Couldn't those gory images have been picked up from the
hundreds of slaughter-houses in every city? Don't those goats, those
chickens, being massacred regularly, similarly cry out for help within a
few kilometres of us everyday, in thousands?
Do we listen? Oh yes! We do!
What do we do about that? Of course! We eat them!
But we dare not act! After all who will change the eating habits?
Why do we care for seals in the arctic thousands of miles away?!
Related blog:
Satyam's Poem
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Killing Baby Seals
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Satyam's Poem
I will reproduce Satyam's poem without his permission:
Ye phal kyun meethe aur taaze hai
------------------------------------------------
Bagiche mein,
meethe angoor, meetha tarbooz, taazaa papeeta, taazaa kharbooz.
itni mithaas aur taazgi, kitni mithaas aur taazgi.
kyun hai ye taazgi aur meethaa pan?
Kaisa rahtaa hogaa bageeche mein panapte in ped paudhon kaa man?
Nahi sambhav hai ye kisi kunthit hriday mein,
Na hi ye sambhav hai niraashaa aur bhay mein.
Is meethepan aur taazgi ke kucch bhi kaaran ho sakte hain.
lekin shaayad aisaa isliye hai kyunki ye ped paudhe humeshaa khush rahte hai.
I felt it was a work of commendable artistic prowess! Not because of poetic quality perhaps. This poem can't be converted into a song. It lacks metering. Technically, it's perhaps defficient on many counts.
I feel, the fact that Satyam could muse about the internal psychological state of flora through the taste of their fruits is a very lateral thing to do. That's the strongest point of the work.
He asked me if I found some truth in the poem. Well! I didn't. I didn't care. That wasn't the point after all. Looking scientifically, we don't have any proof of the existence of 'mind' in plants. It's too crazy to think about whether they are happy or sad.
Satyam has a strong subconscious connection built in his mind between the taste fruits and vegetarian food and the spiritual benefits of the same. I feel the fantastic lateral quality of this musing may have its root in that.
I am ready to believe that food can affect the psyche. I don't have any reason not to disbelieve it either. I am an agnostic in this respect. I strongly feel vegetarianism has some distinct advantages on ethical grounds. I have been a non-vegetarian; and I know that one major reason for continuing to eat that was that they are far too tasty. I knew it even then that the pain I am indirectly causing to a living, feeling, conscious creature was a natural thing for me to feel. I too, temporarily had taken shelter of arguments of even plants being living creatures, or man being on the top of the food chain etc. When I grew up, I could see, very independently, that I was deceaving myself and others. These arguments were very crooked and artificial. I felt, even though greed seems to be a very lowly reason to eat non-veg, it was still better and more valid than all the rest, because it was the true reason. I had no other go but to give up non-veg.
But there are certain things to remember. Vegetarianism, especially if imposed from birth, doesn't make anybody noble. And correlation between vegetarianism and peace of mind is very subtle, if at all. I have come across many vegetarians who can't be called non-aggressive in any way; and plenty of non-vegetarians who show saintly calmness. I feel, vegetarianism or non-vegetarianism, especially, if not chosen, but inherited, doesn't say anything about anybody.
Of course, vegetarianism or non-vegetarianism, if chosen, and not inherited, does provide a point to make estimates about the person's character! ;) Ya, ya! I am talking about myself! ;)
Another beautiful point that came out of the poem was that a person who remains happy and gay, without narrow-minded thoughts, pessimism and fear, his company will automatically become good to taste. :)
There's no disputing this. And there can't be a better way to say that after Satyam's poem.
Ye phal kyun meethe aur taaze hai
------------------------------------------------
Bagiche mein,
meethe angoor, meetha tarbooz, taazaa papeeta, taazaa kharbooz.
itni mithaas aur taazgi, kitni mithaas aur taazgi.
kyun hai ye taazgi aur meethaa pan?
Kaisa rahtaa hogaa bageeche mein panapte in ped paudhon kaa man?
Nahi sambhav hai ye kisi kunthit hriday mein,
Na hi ye sambhav hai niraashaa aur bhay mein.
Is meethepan aur taazgi ke kucch bhi kaaran ho sakte hain.
lekin shaayad aisaa isliye hai kyunki ye ped paudhe humeshaa khush rahte hai.
I felt it was a work of commendable artistic prowess! Not because of poetic quality perhaps. This poem can't be converted into a song. It lacks metering. Technically, it's perhaps defficient on many counts.
I feel, the fact that Satyam could muse about the internal psychological state of flora through the taste of their fruits is a very lateral thing to do. That's the strongest point of the work.
He asked me if I found some truth in the poem. Well! I didn't. I didn't care. That wasn't the point after all. Looking scientifically, we don't have any proof of the existence of 'mind' in plants. It's too crazy to think about whether they are happy or sad.
Satyam has a strong subconscious connection built in his mind between the taste fruits and vegetarian food and the spiritual benefits of the same. I feel the fantastic lateral quality of this musing may have its root in that.
I am ready to believe that food can affect the psyche. I don't have any reason not to disbelieve it either. I am an agnostic in this respect. I strongly feel vegetarianism has some distinct advantages on ethical grounds. I have been a non-vegetarian; and I know that one major reason for continuing to eat that was that they are far too tasty. I knew it even then that the pain I am indirectly causing to a living, feeling, conscious creature was a natural thing for me to feel. I too, temporarily had taken shelter of arguments of even plants being living creatures, or man being on the top of the food chain etc. When I grew up, I could see, very independently, that I was deceaving myself and others. These arguments were very crooked and artificial. I felt, even though greed seems to be a very lowly reason to eat non-veg, it was still better and more valid than all the rest, because it was the true reason. I had no other go but to give up non-veg.
But there are certain things to remember. Vegetarianism, especially if imposed from birth, doesn't make anybody noble. And correlation between vegetarianism and peace of mind is very subtle, if at all. I have come across many vegetarians who can't be called non-aggressive in any way; and plenty of non-vegetarians who show saintly calmness. I feel, vegetarianism or non-vegetarianism, especially, if not chosen, but inherited, doesn't say anything about anybody.
Of course, vegetarianism or non-vegetarianism, if chosen, and not inherited, does provide a point to make estimates about the person's character! ;) Ya, ya! I am talking about myself! ;)
Another beautiful point that came out of the poem was that a person who remains happy and gay, without narrow-minded thoughts, pessimism and fear, his company will automatically become good to taste. :)
There's no disputing this. And there can't be a better way to say that after Satyam's poem.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Welcome All!
(Imported from my old Weblog, November 26, 2003)
This weblog will features a lot of letters that I have written to my friends over the past few years. I don't really get to sit down and write things like stories, essays and such things these days. My explicit interest in things philosophical anyway place me oddly in my technical fraternity. So, my circumstances preclude me from taking to this activity very aggressively. Nevertheless, I happen to write a lot. In the form of anecdotal, philosophical, and sometimes sentimental letters. If I have documented myself and my thoughts with any truth and depth, then it is through such letters. They are spontaneous, truthful and serious. And they are full with whatever wisdom I possess.
They should make an interesting reading. And they may even evoke comments and discussion. I hope, through this marvellous weblogging facility, my letters will be seen and read by many an intellectual, and will in turn trigger good and fruitful thinking in minds of many people.
Thanks,
Sujit
This weblog will features a lot of letters that I have written to my friends over the past few years. I don't really get to sit down and write things like stories, essays and such things these days. My explicit interest in things philosophical anyway place me oddly in my technical fraternity. So, my circumstances preclude me from taking to this activity very aggressively. Nevertheless, I happen to write a lot. In the form of anecdotal, philosophical, and sometimes sentimental letters. If I have documented myself and my thoughts with any truth and depth, then it is through such letters. They are spontaneous, truthful and serious. And they are full with whatever wisdom I possess.
They should make an interesting reading. And they may even evoke comments and discussion. I hope, through this marvellous weblogging facility, my letters will be seen and read by many an intellectual, and will in turn trigger good and fruitful thinking in minds of many people.
Thanks,
Sujit
In Reply to A Letter Related to Kannada Nadu
I think the author of the article has done commendable research on the
matter. And as a good Kannadiga he has played his part well. His
analysis is more than complete. Nobody should be in a position to add
anything to that.
As he rightly points out, the strengthening of a community is indeed
through increasing the efficiency and competency of its members. Things
like Govt. enforcements and laws can do little to the prosperity of the
community. The author's stand is nearly balanced. He gives an impression
that a disciplined, industrious and competent community is what thrives;
and he advocates the imbibing of these qualities strongly enough.
Follow what I would like to add. Just perhaps a point of view...
Community brotherhood is similar to patriotism. Patriotism without
reason is meaningless. Similarly, feeling brotherly for somebody just
because you know that he's a kannadiga doesn't seem mature enough. To be
eager to do something for Kannadigas without any proper reason would
also be unreasonable.
But I don't say there's no reason to love brethen of your community.
People belonging to the same cultural background are more likely to have
been brought up in similar environments. Consequently, there cultural
tastes are more likely to match. Hence, they form a cohesive group of
people who can (most possibly) share one another's views, opinions and
tastes. When they involves themselves in such activities, they evolve
like a family. That surely increases the so-called community feeling.
Being enthusiastic to be useful to your brethen under that feeling is
perfectly logical.
However, when such a cultural bonding is just a phantom thing, not a
reality, then people having been born in the same community are as far
away from each other as anybody could be. The concept of community
feeling doesn't hold much water in that case.
I discussed the matter with many other people and got yet another
viewpoint. It would be wrong to call Bangalore a Kannadiga city per se.
True, it's the state capital. But it used to be a military cantonment in
the initial days of its noticeability. Thereafter, a business centre all
along. Bangalore was brought to its state of glory (or whatever) by many
people: The immigrants as well as the natives. Therefore, though
worrying about
the financial profile of the kannadiga population may be a valid act.
But to think of the immigration and their consequent prosperity as a
wrong thing would be carrying it too far. Bangalore's prosperity and
immigration are sort of complimentary realities.
As a conclusion, I have some very nice suggestions which will look
perfectly impractical to you! :)
Attack the problem at its root. That's the general lack of cultural
bonding between kannadigas in B'lore. This bonding can never be created
by helping
them build software careers. In business, there truly doesn't exist a
community. The cultural bonding can be developed only through vibrant
cultural environment. We should do something to remove the callousness
of people towards their culture. There should be more Kannada movie
shows. Carnatic Classical Music should be propagated more aggressively.
Knowledgeable people should make more efforts towards spreading
awareness about the history and geography of the state. Religious
festivals should be celebrated more pompuously. Regional art should be
given general notice. Kannada literature should be made a more generally
noticed effort.
A well-informed community will be naturally cohesive and strong. An
ill-informed community will be aggressive, worried, irritable and
confused. Under such condition, resorting to any strange methods to
strengthen the community would only accentuate its indecision regarding
its survival.
If you can take a stronger statement, then one must not take one's
concern for his people as a real concern for his culture (or community)
if it rests upon their monetory condition. One's concern should start if
and when he's able to observe whether his community does indeed contain
enough cultural vibrance to hold itself together. In absense of that
cultural vibrance, the community bonding is essentially fake, doesn't
exist! Anything done in the effect of such phantom affection is an act
of total confusion, and will lead to chaos. This is true about Tamils,
Malayalis, Gults, Bengalis. This would be true about Kannadigas if they
resort to anything of that sort. Cultural vibrance is what makes a
community a reality. In its absense, there's no such thing like a
community. A statistical figure showing people said to belong that
community doing well monetorily doesn't convey anything. The cultural
bonding that's supposed to hold them together may as well be inexistent.
A good example of a strong community is of Pune. It has a vibrant
cultural environment. Drama theatres, Cultural Fest.s, Ganeshotsava,
everything keeps up a maratha atmosphere. And you see that pride and
confidence in the native maratha guys. No doubt, that city enjoys a good
cultural environment in the presence of immigration from other place
comparable to Bangalore's. I have not heard of a case of a Marathi
fellow helping a Marathi fellow to get a job. But they are far from
feeling insecure in their own land.
(Imported from my old weblog November 26, 2003)
A personal advice to you would be that you start with yourself. Like
the author of the article, do something painstaking to increase your and
others' awareness about the Kannada Nadu, to start with. Read more
Kannada books (a Kannadiga who advocates formation of Kannada community
in his office, and back home wastes his time watching English TV
channels is definitely not setting a good example of an industrious and
disciplined Kannadiga). I think you should go out of your way to
increase your awareness about your culture through reading and other
activities. Only if you convince yourself that you have sufficient
cultural energy, then you will automatically come up with creative ideas
to promote the culture. And your attempts towards the upliftment of your
community will be meaningful.
matter. And as a good Kannadiga he has played his part well. His
analysis is more than complete. Nobody should be in a position to add
anything to that.
As he rightly points out, the strengthening of a community is indeed
through increasing the efficiency and competency of its members. Things
like Govt. enforcements and laws can do little to the prosperity of the
community. The author's stand is nearly balanced. He gives an impression
that a disciplined, industrious and competent community is what thrives;
and he advocates the imbibing of these qualities strongly enough.
Follow what I would like to add. Just perhaps a point of view...
Community brotherhood is similar to patriotism. Patriotism without
reason is meaningless. Similarly, feeling brotherly for somebody just
because you know that he's a kannadiga doesn't seem mature enough. To be
eager to do something for Kannadigas without any proper reason would
also be unreasonable.
But I don't say there's no reason to love brethen of your community.
People belonging to the same cultural background are more likely to have
been brought up in similar environments. Consequently, there cultural
tastes are more likely to match. Hence, they form a cohesive group of
people who can (most possibly) share one another's views, opinions and
tastes. When they involves themselves in such activities, they evolve
like a family. That surely increases the so-called community feeling.
Being enthusiastic to be useful to your brethen under that feeling is
perfectly logical.
However, when such a cultural bonding is just a phantom thing, not a
reality, then people having been born in the same community are as far
away from each other as anybody could be. The concept of community
feeling doesn't hold much water in that case.
I discussed the matter with many other people and got yet another
viewpoint. It would be wrong to call Bangalore a Kannadiga city per se.
True, it's the state capital. But it used to be a military cantonment in
the initial days of its noticeability. Thereafter, a business centre all
along. Bangalore was brought to its state of glory (or whatever) by many
people: The immigrants as well as the natives. Therefore, though
worrying about
the financial profile of the kannadiga population may be a valid act.
But to think of the immigration and their consequent prosperity as a
wrong thing would be carrying it too far. Bangalore's prosperity and
immigration are sort of complimentary realities.
As a conclusion, I have some very nice suggestions which will look
perfectly impractical to you! :)
Attack the problem at its root. That's the general lack of cultural
bonding between kannadigas in B'lore. This bonding can never be created
by helping
them build software careers. In business, there truly doesn't exist a
community. The cultural bonding can be developed only through vibrant
cultural environment. We should do something to remove the callousness
of people towards their culture. There should be more Kannada movie
shows. Carnatic Classical Music should be propagated more aggressively.
Knowledgeable people should make more efforts towards spreading
awareness about the history and geography of the state. Religious
festivals should be celebrated more pompuously. Regional art should be
given general notice. Kannada literature should be made a more generally
noticed effort.
A well-informed community will be naturally cohesive and strong. An
ill-informed community will be aggressive, worried, irritable and
confused. Under such condition, resorting to any strange methods to
strengthen the community would only accentuate its indecision regarding
its survival.
If you can take a stronger statement, then one must not take one's
concern for his people as a real concern for his culture (or community)
if it rests upon their monetory condition. One's concern should start if
and when he's able to observe whether his community does indeed contain
enough cultural vibrance to hold itself together. In absense of that
cultural vibrance, the community bonding is essentially fake, doesn't
exist! Anything done in the effect of such phantom affection is an act
of total confusion, and will lead to chaos. This is true about Tamils,
Malayalis, Gults, Bengalis. This would be true about Kannadigas if they
resort to anything of that sort. Cultural vibrance is what makes a
community a reality. In its absense, there's no such thing like a
community. A statistical figure showing people said to belong that
community doing well monetorily doesn't convey anything. The cultural
bonding that's supposed to hold them together may as well be inexistent.
A good example of a strong community is of Pune. It has a vibrant
cultural environment. Drama theatres, Cultural Fest.s, Ganeshotsava,
everything keeps up a maratha atmosphere. And you see that pride and
confidence in the native maratha guys. No doubt, that city enjoys a good
cultural environment in the presence of immigration from other place
comparable to Bangalore's. I have not heard of a case of a Marathi
fellow helping a Marathi fellow to get a job. But they are far from
feeling insecure in their own land.
(Imported from my old weblog November 26, 2003)
A personal advice to you would be that you start with yourself. Like
the author of the article, do something painstaking to increase your and
others' awareness about the Kannada Nadu, to start with. Read more
Kannada books (a Kannadiga who advocates formation of Kannada community
in his office, and back home wastes his time watching English TV
channels is definitely not setting a good example of an industrious and
disciplined Kannadiga). I think you should go out of your way to
increase your awareness about your culture through reading and other
activities. Only if you convince yourself that you have sufficient
cultural energy, then you will automatically come up with creative ideas
to promote the culture. And your attempts towards the upliftment of your
community will be meaningful.
Indians Are Monkeys
(Imported from my old weblog November 26, 2003)
Nice story...
Since most of us haven't had and perhaps won't have a taste of working in a company, here's a more general and relevant interpretation of the story.
Very much applies to poor people of our poor nation. Someone has worked very hard to convince a generation (or a few generations) that standing up for oneself means a lot of misery, persecution and death. It becomes an almost genetic property of a complete society to think of itself as basically inferior and crippled.
In someway or the other, they feel deep down that whatever good comes out of them is due to the dependence on some external entities. Doing good stuff all by yourself is good. But doing it under the auspices of some bonafide guys is better.
Our predecessors are those who have been there from the times when they all used to be sprayed with misery and persecution when a handful of courageous guys tried to deny misery and dependence. In those times, you would get rewarded for being spineless, sycophant, corrupt and a traitor. They are also the ones who pass
on that insecurity to us.
Now we guys feel that we are essentially spineless, corrupt and imbecile. That knowledge of our own character is from the wisdom of our elders to which we give
more importance than to our own sense of reason. Our lack of confidence surfaces in a variety of ways. We want to go away to US. We want to have at least one degree from abroad. We want, in the least, to spend at least a couple of years outside so that we can earn some money, and then come back and serve our poor country! Ha!
We are all monkeys who are injected with a genetic fear of reaching out to the banana. That banana, for us, is the prospect of proving that we, as a nation, are capable to work hard and be confident. Without needing to look for the charity
that's ridden with dishonest feelings and vested interests. To be towed by the leader of a race is not the first step towards winning the race. That perpetualises the fact that we will always be dragged around on beaten paths. The first step towards winning a race is the act of standing up, and to run!
Just a musing that was. Guys, don't mind!
Love,
Sujit
Emtiyaz wrote:
> This one is brilliant.....read on ..it makes lot of sense!
>
> Put eight monkeys in a room. In the middle of the room is a ladder, leading
> to
> a bunch of bananas hanging from a hook on the ceiling.
> Each time a monkey tries to climb the ladder, all the monkeys are sprayed
> with
> ice water, which makes them miserable. Soon enough,whenever a monkey
> attempts
> to climb the ladder, all of the other monkeys, not wanting to be sprayed,
> set
> upon him and beat him up. Soon, none of the eight monkeys ever attempts to
> climb
> the ladder.
>
> One of the original monkeys is then removed, and a new
> monkey is put in the room.
>
> Seeing the bananas and the ladder, he wonders why none of the other monkeys
> are doing the obvious, but, undaunted, he immediately begins to climb the
> ladder. All the other monkeys fall upon him and beat him silly. He has no
> idea
> why. However, he no longer attempts to climb the ladder.
>
> A second original monkey is removed and replaced. The newcomer again
> attempts
> to climb the ladder, but all the other monkeys hammer the crap out of him.
> This includes the previous new monkey, who, grateful that he's not on the
> receiving end this time, participates in the beating because all the other
> monkeys are doing it.
>
> However, he has no idea why he's attacking the new monkey.
> > One by one, all the original monkeys are replaced.
> Eight new monkeys are now in the room. None of them have ever been sprayed
> by
> ice water. None of them attempts to climb the ladder. All of them will
> enthusiastically beat up any new monkey who tries, without having any idea
> why.
>
> "AND THAT'S HOW ANY COMPANY'S POLICIES GET ESTABLISHED".
>
Nice story...
Since most of us haven't had and perhaps won't have a taste of working in a company, here's a more general and relevant interpretation of the story.
Very much applies to poor people of our poor nation. Someone has worked very hard to convince a generation (or a few generations) that standing up for oneself means a lot of misery, persecution and death. It becomes an almost genetic property of a complete society to think of itself as basically inferior and crippled.
In someway or the other, they feel deep down that whatever good comes out of them is due to the dependence on some external entities. Doing good stuff all by yourself is good. But doing it under the auspices of some bonafide guys is better.
Our predecessors are those who have been there from the times when they all used to be sprayed with misery and persecution when a handful of courageous guys tried to deny misery and dependence. In those times, you would get rewarded for being spineless, sycophant, corrupt and a traitor. They are also the ones who pass
on that insecurity to us.
Now we guys feel that we are essentially spineless, corrupt and imbecile. That knowledge of our own character is from the wisdom of our elders to which we give
more importance than to our own sense of reason. Our lack of confidence surfaces in a variety of ways. We want to go away to US. We want to have at least one degree from abroad. We want, in the least, to spend at least a couple of years outside so that we can earn some money, and then come back and serve our poor country! Ha!
We are all monkeys who are injected with a genetic fear of reaching out to the banana. That banana, for us, is the prospect of proving that we, as a nation, are capable to work hard and be confident. Without needing to look for the charity
that's ridden with dishonest feelings and vested interests. To be towed by the leader of a race is not the first step towards winning the race. That perpetualises the fact that we will always be dragged around on beaten paths. The first step towards winning a race is the act of standing up, and to run!
Just a musing that was. Guys, don't mind!
Love,
Sujit
Emtiyaz wrote:
> This one is brilliant.....read on ..it makes lot of sense!
>
> Put eight monkeys in a room. In the middle of the room is a ladder, leading
> to
> a bunch of bananas hanging from a hook on the ceiling.
> Each time a monkey tries to climb the ladder, all the monkeys are sprayed
> with
> ice water, which makes them miserable. Soon enough,whenever a monkey
> attempts
> to climb the ladder, all of the other monkeys, not wanting to be sprayed,
> set
> upon him and beat him up. Soon, none of the eight monkeys ever attempts to
> climb
> the ladder.
>
> One of the original monkeys is then removed, and a new
> monkey is put in the room.
>
> Seeing the bananas and the ladder, he wonders why none of the other monkeys
> are doing the obvious, but, undaunted, he immediately begins to climb the
> ladder. All the other monkeys fall upon him and beat him silly. He has no
> idea
> why. However, he no longer attempts to climb the ladder.
>
> A second original monkey is removed and replaced. The newcomer again
> attempts
> to climb the ladder, but all the other monkeys hammer the crap out of him.
> This includes the previous new monkey, who, grateful that he's not on the
> receiving end this time, participates in the beating because all the other
> monkeys are doing it.
>
> However, he has no idea why he's attacking the new monkey.
> > One by one, all the original monkeys are replaced.
> Eight new monkeys are now in the room. None of them have ever been sprayed
> by
> ice water. None of them attempts to climb the ladder. All of them will
> enthusiastically beat up any new monkey who tries, without having any idea
> why.
>
> "AND THAT'S HOW ANY COMPANY'S POLICIES GET ESTABLISHED".
>
Communication
Personally, I don't insist on rule-book correctness. But, I have a general philosophy:
'KNOW THE RULES BEFORE YOU CHOOSE TO BREAK THEM.'
So, often, intentionally using wrong constructs increases the beauty and expressivity of your sentence by adding an element of humour. But that should be done sparingly and wisely. It should, in some way, make it clear that you are aware of the rules you are breaking.
Thoughts in the mind are abstract entities. Communication is the amazing process of the tranformation of those abstract entities into concrete ones: through words and sentences, through facial expressions and actions, and through various forms of art and science. Don't think of mastering a language. Just try to observe and marvel at beauty of man's effort to try to map the abstract internal world with the concrete outside world.
And finally, communication is more or less independent of the language. If you are good in one language, you will be good in all. If the mind is eager to always communicate an idea with precision and beauty, language just falls into place. Think about being a good communicator. Read the books and papers you have always been reading with a different perspective: With the perspective of understanding the way the authors try to convey their thoughts. You will soon be a master communicator yourself!
'KNOW THE RULES BEFORE YOU CHOOSE TO BREAK THEM.'
So, often, intentionally using wrong constructs increases the beauty and expressivity of your sentence by adding an element of humour. But that should be done sparingly and wisely. It should, in some way, make it clear that you are aware of the rules you are breaking.
Thoughts in the mind are abstract entities. Communication is the amazing process of the tranformation of those abstract entities into concrete ones: through words and sentences, through facial expressions and actions, and through various forms of art and science. Don't think of mastering a language. Just try to observe and marvel at beauty of man's effort to try to map the abstract internal world with the concrete outside world.
And finally, communication is more or less independent of the language. If you are good in one language, you will be good in all. If the mind is eager to always communicate an idea with precision and beauty, language just falls into place. Think about being a good communicator. Read the books and papers you have always been reading with a different perspective: With the perspective of understanding the way the authors try to convey their thoughts. You will soon be a master communicator yourself!
Nrityagram Visit on September 1, 2002
(Imported from my old weblog, January 26, 2004)
WARNING: A longish mail follows. If you're busy save it for later perusal.
Today, four of us, along with others had been to Nrityagram. Initially, I
was rather doubtful about the justifiability of this trip in the face of
the overall progress report of the team, which seems a little below the
safety mark. Perhaps, being around with everybody would have been good.
But now I feel that I have something better to share with you. A
few words about the experience that we had there, and a mental picture
that we have
carried back from there. It's a beautiful picture. Like a rangoli drawn on
water. Some of you may have found me and Prodyut slightly pensive, laid
back, serious, depressed etc. this evening. Perhaps, it's the tiredness of
the day. But
more than that, it was that beautiful picture drawn on water which we were
gazing at, were trying to preserve, until gloating over it registered it
permanently to the memory. And registered, it had got; for never will we
forget this day.
I won't describe the physical beauty of the place, since there's
no dearth of it in our current surroundings. I will try to relate a few
bits of what I can remember out of our conversation there with the
artists, immediately after the rehearsals and during the lunch.
We all are artists:
-------------------
We all are artists in many ways. The apparent is obvious. We all
sing, dance, play instruments. But we are artists in a not-so-obvious way.
We all are artists because we love what we do. The realisation, if it
wasn't there in any of us, comes from one of the artists there.
When we sat there listening to her, feeling humbled after having
seen her so closely while she rehearsed, she told this, 'I feel you work
far more harder than we do. For me, it's unimaginable. You too are artists
in my view.' Perhaps she told it sincerely. Or perhaps, she didn't find so
much satisfaction in some of us, and wanted to make us feel good about
our occupation! But I felt the truth in it deep down in my heart.
The relation between the artist and the audience:
-------------------------------------------------
One more revelation was about the expectations from a good
audience. She said, 'When I dance in front of an audience, I make myself
very vulnerable to them. They can kill me if they want.' She revealed
about one of the bad experiences she had in IISc. 'I felt like a
prostitute after the performance.' The audience matters so much to the
artist, and like this. A lady who appeared like a goddess to her present
audience, had been degraded to feeling like a fallen woman!
What is it that she expects from the audience. I thought about
when you share something close to your heart to somebody. You expose
yourself (like I am perhaps doing now). Something you value, something you
tenderly love : the sight of a pink flower among lush green foliage, a
jingle of a far-off bell, a beloved person, an experience. When you share
it with somebody, your expectation is to see a part of that love growing
in the
listener. When two person's object of love is the same, they also love
each other. That's how the relation is built. That's how love grows.
But at that moment it's very easy for your listener to hurt you.
He or she can just profane your emotions. And you see your love being
hurt. The seed of love that you'd planted, the seed which you wanted to
see growing into a tree, gets trampled cruelly. You see your love, the
offspring of your emotions, getting cruelly murdered. And there is nothing
more painful than that. That's exactly in contrast to what you do it for.
When your performance plants the seed of your love in some other heart,
you see your love growing in another self. You see yourself growing.
Their's nothing more euphoric than that. Perhaps that's what she named
'Spiritual orgasm!' :)
For her, her dance is the perfect way of expressing herself. And
in expressing oneself, lies the greatest pleasure of life, and the biggest
danger too. 'For me dancing is how I reach out to my higher self.' And
that's how
she wants it to be for her audience too. As the dancer or as an audience,
one can experience the same : The rising of the self. Half of this
success
lies with the audience. They can as well look at it as a mere performance
of an artist, or may be something really vulgar. Or they can honour it by
making a way of spiritual upliftment for themselves as well as for the
performer.
Sucess
------
They are involved in conducting weekend dance courses for children from
the surrounding villages. On being asked how many of them would really end
up becoming dancers, one of them said that very few, in fact. Then she
said a beautiful thing: 'They are all living hard lives. They are afraid.
Inconfident. They have learnt to bear pain silently. If their father comes
back home everyday heavily drunk, she has learnt not even to cry of fear
and disgust. If at the end of a year, she discovers so much of the
pleasure of expressing oneself that she can actually cry out when she
feels pain on seeing her drunken father beating her mother, we will
consider it a great success!'
Expressing oneself creates confidence, to say the least. It's in
fact the only way to be happy, to be successful, to be in love. Only when
our outer activities get synchronised with our inner world, the above
magical things -- confidence, love, success, happiness -- become simple
facts, realities of life. For them, dance expresses their inner self.
For us...? It could be anything. Singing, dancing, playing,
drawing, writing, or researching.
********************************************
My black and white writing can't reproduce all the effects of the
colourful picture I have carried back. But I hope many of us would get
curious (and not put-off!) about the colours of that simple ensemble, the
colours that I can't show myself with any amount of poetry of words. You
must go there and see it for yourself.
I will find it a great success if this mail, which I have typed
while my eyes are laden with tiredness and sleepiness, makes some of you
really find it a worthwhile effort to visit Nrityagram in the near future.
Love,
Sujit
WARNING: A longish mail follows. If you're busy save it for later perusal.
Today, four of us, along with others had been to Nrityagram. Initially, I
was rather doubtful about the justifiability of this trip in the face of
the overall progress report of the team, which seems a little below the
safety mark. Perhaps, being around with everybody would have been good.
But now I feel that I have something better to share with you. A
few words about the experience that we had there, and a mental picture
that we have
carried back from there. It's a beautiful picture. Like a rangoli drawn on
water. Some of you may have found me and Prodyut slightly pensive, laid
back, serious, depressed etc. this evening. Perhaps, it's the tiredness of
the day. But
more than that, it was that beautiful picture drawn on water which we were
gazing at, were trying to preserve, until gloating over it registered it
permanently to the memory. And registered, it had got; for never will we
forget this day.
I won't describe the physical beauty of the place, since there's
no dearth of it in our current surroundings. I will try to relate a few
bits of what I can remember out of our conversation there with the
artists, immediately after the rehearsals and during the lunch.
We all are artists:
-------------------
We all are artists in many ways. The apparent is obvious. We all
sing, dance, play instruments. But we are artists in a not-so-obvious way.
We all are artists because we love what we do. The realisation, if it
wasn't there in any of us, comes from one of the artists there.
When we sat there listening to her, feeling humbled after having
seen her so closely while she rehearsed, she told this, 'I feel you work
far more harder than we do. For me, it's unimaginable. You too are artists
in my view.' Perhaps she told it sincerely. Or perhaps, she didn't find so
much satisfaction in some of us, and wanted to make us feel good about
our occupation! But I felt the truth in it deep down in my heart.
The relation between the artist and the audience:
-------------------------------------------------
One more revelation was about the expectations from a good
audience. She said, 'When I dance in front of an audience, I make myself
very vulnerable to them. They can kill me if they want.' She revealed
about one of the bad experiences she had in IISc. 'I felt like a
prostitute after the performance.' The audience matters so much to the
artist, and like this. A lady who appeared like a goddess to her present
audience, had been degraded to feeling like a fallen woman!
What is it that she expects from the audience. I thought about
when you share something close to your heart to somebody. You expose
yourself (like I am perhaps doing now). Something you value, something you
tenderly love : the sight of a pink flower among lush green foliage, a
jingle of a far-off bell, a beloved person, an experience. When you share
it with somebody, your expectation is to see a part of that love growing
in the
listener. When two person's object of love is the same, they also love
each other. That's how the relation is built. That's how love grows.
But at that moment it's very easy for your listener to hurt you.
He or she can just profane your emotions. And you see your love being
hurt. The seed of love that you'd planted, the seed which you wanted to
see growing into a tree, gets trampled cruelly. You see your love, the
offspring of your emotions, getting cruelly murdered. And there is nothing
more painful than that. That's exactly in contrast to what you do it for.
When your performance plants the seed of your love in some other heart,
you see your love growing in another self. You see yourself growing.
Their's nothing more euphoric than that. Perhaps that's what she named
'Spiritual orgasm!' :)
For her, her dance is the perfect way of expressing herself. And
in expressing oneself, lies the greatest pleasure of life, and the biggest
danger too. 'For me dancing is how I reach out to my higher self.' And
that's how
she wants it to be for her audience too. As the dancer or as an audience,
one can experience the same : The rising of the self. Half of this
success
lies with the audience. They can as well look at it as a mere performance
of an artist, or may be something really vulgar. Or they can honour it by
making a way of spiritual upliftment for themselves as well as for the
performer.
Sucess
------
They are involved in conducting weekend dance courses for children from
the surrounding villages. On being asked how many of them would really end
up becoming dancers, one of them said that very few, in fact. Then she
said a beautiful thing: 'They are all living hard lives. They are afraid.
Inconfident. They have learnt to bear pain silently. If their father comes
back home everyday heavily drunk, she has learnt not even to cry of fear
and disgust. If at the end of a year, she discovers so much of the
pleasure of expressing oneself that she can actually cry out when she
feels pain on seeing her drunken father beating her mother, we will
consider it a great success!'
Expressing oneself creates confidence, to say the least. It's in
fact the only way to be happy, to be successful, to be in love. Only when
our outer activities get synchronised with our inner world, the above
magical things -- confidence, love, success, happiness -- become simple
facts, realities of life. For them, dance expresses their inner self.
For us...? It could be anything. Singing, dancing, playing,
drawing, writing, or researching.
********************************************
My black and white writing can't reproduce all the effects of the
colourful picture I have carried back. But I hope many of us would get
curious (and not put-off!) about the colours of that simple ensemble, the
colours that I can't show myself with any amount of poetry of words. You
must go there and see it for yourself.
I will find it a great success if this mail, which I have typed
while my eyes are laden with tiredness and sleepiness, makes some of you
really find it a worthwhile effort to visit Nrityagram in the near future.
Love,
Sujit
Yuva - My Review
(Imported from my old weblog May 24, 2004)
You people want it to be timepass. Well...I don't know what it means.
Are honest views forbidden from timepass chains?
I think it was one of the movies I enjoyed the most. It showed the
youthful enthusiasm winning without really turning criminal. It's OK to
be emotional about the people, society, nation...and it does succeed.
Being ambititious, blatantly selfish, consumerist....and all that is
cool in this age of ultracapitalism, but being strongly concerned for
people around you, having a strong urge to see things turning better
around you is also cool. That was the message.
Most likeable thing of all was the main protagonist: A researcher who
finds staying back at homeland a perfectly logical alternative against
flying away in search of greener pastures. An intellectual who discusses
Quantum Physics with his fellows in the darkness of a prison cell. A
scientist who doesn't sing mushy mushy love songs for his beloved, but
gets away perfectly clean by giving her some pure intellectual stuff
which is perfectly incoherent to her. Added to that he does fistfighting
as well as all the rest. A charater which was almost a perfect mix of
identification and idolisation! I loved it! :)
As Pritesh says, Rani and Abhishek were cool. Ajay Devgan was simply
stupendous. If he looked older than the age shown, I didn't feel it.
Kareena was tolerable. Thankfully she was well draped despite playing a
modern girl. Her getup of Asoka and Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gum still give me
nightmares. I felt it was right that exit of Rani Mukherjee from stage
wasn't any more filmy.
I found Om Puri and Anant Nag both terribly under utilised. Om Puri's
acquired Bengali accent was at times getting on my nerves, but towards
the end it was getting better.
And finally, though this kind of thought is not all that typical of an
MCP like me. But it strike me that the young women in the movie, though
playing good roles, always remained in the background the main issues of
the movie. Perhaps, portraying at least one of them taking a more
leading role in the political things would have given a more complete
look to the movie. After all, 50% of the youth are female.
Chal. I already see many 'delete' buttons being pressed.
Cheers,
Sujit
You people want it to be timepass. Well...I don't know what it means.
Are honest views forbidden from timepass chains?
I think it was one of the movies I enjoyed the most. It showed the
youthful enthusiasm winning without really turning criminal. It's OK to
be emotional about the people, society, nation...and it does succeed.
Being ambititious, blatantly selfish, consumerist....and all that is
cool in this age of ultracapitalism, but being strongly concerned for
people around you, having a strong urge to see things turning better
around you is also cool. That was the message.
Most likeable thing of all was the main protagonist: A researcher who
finds staying back at homeland a perfectly logical alternative against
flying away in search of greener pastures. An intellectual who discusses
Quantum Physics with his fellows in the darkness of a prison cell. A
scientist who doesn't sing mushy mushy love songs for his beloved, but
gets away perfectly clean by giving her some pure intellectual stuff
which is perfectly incoherent to her. Added to that he does fistfighting
as well as all the rest. A charater which was almost a perfect mix of
identification and idolisation! I loved it! :)
As Pritesh says, Rani and Abhishek were cool. Ajay Devgan was simply
stupendous. If he looked older than the age shown, I didn't feel it.
Kareena was tolerable. Thankfully she was well draped despite playing a
modern girl. Her getup of Asoka and Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gum still give me
nightmares. I felt it was right that exit of Rani Mukherjee from stage
wasn't any more filmy.
I found Om Puri and Anant Nag both terribly under utilised. Om Puri's
acquired Bengali accent was at times getting on my nerves, but towards
the end it was getting better.
And finally, though this kind of thought is not all that typical of an
MCP like me. But it strike me that the young women in the movie, though
playing good roles, always remained in the background the main issues of
the movie. Perhaps, portraying at least one of them taking a more
leading role in the political things would have given a more complete
look to the movie. After all, 50% of the youth are female.
Chal. I already see many 'delete' buttons being pressed.
Cheers,
Sujit
Justifiability of Kindness
(Imported from my old weblog January 8, 2005)
>
> I feel we interact with people in various ways. To give a role and place to a downtrodden and underconfident soul is really a noble deed. But I wonder if that's what we are supposed to do. I don't resent that idea. But I don't fully believe in that either. Just like my stand on 'Faith' I am an agnostic here too.
>
> Over time, I have developed a deep and smouldering resentment for out and out kindness. If an existence is all due to an act of kindness, it has no hope to earn the pride that must exist with each life. If I am sure that the other party knows that his pain hurts me as much as it hurts him, only then can I extend my helping hands to him. Or else, I must manage to convey that any kind act I did was very much a natural act -- a trade of benefits -- not a divine one.
>
> Last year I was reading a novel named Gora by Tagore. It conveyed this idea very lucidly and elaborately. I won't be able to do it within this mail. Perhaps an example will do good here. Rest we'll talk. For instance, the stuff we were left with yesterday...if I were given a chance to give it to somebody, I won't give it the person who needs it more. I will give it to the person who understands it better that I am giving it for my own reason, not out of any kind of kindliness and nobility, so that he doesn't burden me with any gratitude that I don't deserve. I am dead scared of being called kinder than I actually am.
>
>
> I feel we interact with people in various ways. To give a role and place to a downtrodden and underconfident soul is really a noble deed. But I wonder if that's what we are supposed to do. I don't resent that idea. But I don't fully believe in that either. Just like my stand on 'Faith' I am an agnostic here too.
>
> Over time, I have developed a deep and smouldering resentment for out and out kindness. If an existence is all due to an act of kindness, it has no hope to earn the pride that must exist with each life. If I am sure that the other party knows that his pain hurts me as much as it hurts him, only then can I extend my helping hands to him. Or else, I must manage to convey that any kind act I did was very much a natural act -- a trade of benefits -- not a divine one.
>
> Last year I was reading a novel named Gora by Tagore. It conveyed this idea very lucidly and elaborately. I won't be able to do it within this mail. Perhaps an example will do good here. Rest we'll talk. For instance, the stuff we were left with yesterday...if I were given a chance to give it to somebody, I won't give it the person who needs it more. I will give it to the person who understands it better that I am giving it for my own reason, not out of any kind of kindliness and nobility, so that he doesn't burden me with any gratitude that I don't deserve. I am dead scared of being called kinder than I actually am.
>
British English and American English
(Imported from my old weblog January 8, 2005)
You know there are aberrations in all people's psyche. This is an aberration in mine! I just feel too strongly when I see American spellings getting into us. It brings in floods of thoughts about American Economic Imperialism and what not! The possibility that all this has something to do very strongly with people's acceptance of America's supremacy in all ways looms large in my thoughts. I feel unhappy that a country can affect our ways so subtly just because it's the richest country of the world. It affects how we work, how we think, how we spend our weekends, how we sell our products and how we buy them, and how we spend our money. All these have something to do directly with money. Hence, it's sort of easy for me to accept that such things are defined by America's culture.
But when I see that we let America decide even how we spell our words (especially against our having learnt and taught this foriegn language for decades), I get a sick feeling. It strikes me directly as how a rich man (nation or society) can force its way into people's grits and guts. Right from how we eat food to how we clean our a**.
Anyway, all this discussed in public would make me look very silly. I mean, 'doesn't this fellow have something better to think more strongly about!' kind of thing.
You know there are aberrations in all people's psyche. This is an aberration in mine! I just feel too strongly when I see American spellings getting into us. It brings in floods of thoughts about American Economic Imperialism and what not! The possibility that all this has something to do very strongly with people's acceptance of America's supremacy in all ways looms large in my thoughts. I feel unhappy that a country can affect our ways so subtly just because it's the richest country of the world. It affects how we work, how we think, how we spend our weekends, how we sell our products and how we buy them, and how we spend our money. All these have something to do directly with money. Hence, it's sort of easy for me to accept that such things are defined by America's culture.
But when I see that we let America decide even how we spell our words (especially against our having learnt and taught this foriegn language for decades), I get a sick feeling. It strikes me directly as how a rich man (nation or society) can force its way into people's grits and guts. Right from how we eat food to how we clean our a**.
Anyway, all this discussed in public would make me look very silly. I mean, 'doesn't this fellow have something better to think more strongly about!' kind of thing.
Love Animals
(Imported from my old weblog January 8, 2005)
Soon there'll be reports that breathing is too dangerous! Buy oxygen
cylinders or die!
These docs are crazy. They do research similar to ours. Publishing one
paper and then publishing another proving the first one wrong.
Be careful in handling pets. Wash your hands after stroking them. Keep
clean. Be hygenic.
But more importantly, do love animals. They are far far better than
humans in reciprocating your affection for them. They aren't mostly very
useful as humans are. But such beautiful things are got from them only
when you love them:
Innocent, simple, beautiful eyes full of affection.
A perpetually playful mood that's as good as anything in lifting the mood.
Such modesty as humans can never have.
And above all, a feeling of love that has nothing to do with pride, ego.
Pets are far better than us in becoming a part of the family, in becoming
a friend both to papa, and son, and the grandson and Grandpa.
People spend so much time and effort in looking for a human with such
qualities. Mostly they never find him. Pets are replete with such precious
qualities.
Love animals as you love people.
Sujit,
The simple villager, not a greenpeace activist!
PS: That's in addition to the suggestion that you should keep clean, not
to refute that.
Soon there'll be reports that breathing is too dangerous! Buy oxygen
cylinders or die!
These docs are crazy. They do research similar to ours. Publishing one
paper and then publishing another proving the first one wrong.
Be careful in handling pets. Wash your hands after stroking them. Keep
clean. Be hygenic.
But more importantly, do love animals. They are far far better than
humans in reciprocating your affection for them. They aren't mostly very
useful as humans are. But such beautiful things are got from them only
when you love them:
Innocent, simple, beautiful eyes full of affection.
A perpetually playful mood that's as good as anything in lifting the mood.
Such modesty as humans can never have.
And above all, a feeling of love that has nothing to do with pride, ego.
Pets are far better than us in becoming a part of the family, in becoming
a friend both to papa, and son, and the grandson and Grandpa.
People spend so much time and effort in looking for a human with such
qualities. Mostly they never find him. Pets are replete with such precious
qualities.
Love animals as you love people.
Sujit,
The simple villager, not a greenpeace activist!
PS: That's in addition to the suggestion that you should keep clean, not
to refute that.
Advice to A Youngster
(Imported from my old weblog January 9, 2005)
Good to hear that you are happy there. That makes me happy too.
I had met Billu mama, dadu and didima on Raja mama's wedding. That was more than one and half years ago. I often miss them. But ...
I will not be lecturing you too often. Since, you seem to have already started off with your new life, I will take one single opportunity to give a couple of tips now. Like any good thing, they will be slightly boring. But don't ignore them. If possible, preserve this mail for future reference. Many things written in it, which may appear as nonsense to you now, will make sense to you later.
1. Ragging
---------------
Take ragging in your stride. Unless, there's too much of physical ragging, there's always a scope of handling these situations really smartly. Just keep your cool. Don't get angry or depressed by the way the seniors treat you. A bit of humiliation...that's what you should learn to take during the ragging. The same guys who rag you now will be your good friends tomorrow. Be smart in doing what you are asked to do. Of course, don't be extra smart! Just remember, a person who can walk away gracefully even after being humiliated will never lose his honour. :)
And if possible, swear to yourself that you will not take part in ragging your juniors in your later years. All said and done, ragging is evil. It's essentially an ugly way of releasing one's frustrated unspent energies on juniors. A really silly and immature way of trying to feel superior by scaring the juniors. While you are being subject to it, keep playing safe and don't get into unnecessary broils; but vow not to subject others to ragging when you have a choice. Remember that.
2. Coin, the Great Doctor
----------------------------------
And of course, studies are what you have gone there to do. At any cost, let that never suffer. You have come so far from your home for the first time all alone. Lots of unforeseen experiences are waiting for you here. Lots of things which will turn you from a lad to a man. Learn from all your experiences. You are about to embark on one of the most noble professions, i.e. of a doctor. And being a good doctor doesn't happen by reading a handful of subjects and clearing a handful of exams. Start becoming a doctor from your first day there. Keep it at the back of your mind day in and day out that you have to become a good doctor. Find out what's required to do to become a good doctor. Do them religiously. Certain things that need to be done (according to me) are:
* Do you feel compassion for the suffering? Devise your own ways of aliviating pain for others. Start feeling the joy of forgetting your own pain in order to cure others of their pains.
* Be curious and interested. Learn your subjects as you learn how to live. The skills you acquire now, the realisations you get now, will work as your main strength all your life. Learn them well, and permanently. While doing well in the exams is always an important thing, now it's time for you to start giving it a secondary priority. The first priority should be understand things well and deeply, and develop a strong interest to find out even more.
* Develop a way of living. Time for you to start giving thought to what's important in your life. A bit of philosophical outlook will serve immensely in making you find coherence between your worldly objectives and your inner requirements of self-actualisation. Consider bringing in discipline into your life in your own way. I know this will sound very cryptic right at this point. Never mind! Come back to it next year, then again the year next to that...Each successive year, these words will make more and more sense to you.
* Develop a clear set of idealogies. Don't make stupid rules like 'I will never miss a class' or things like that. You have to develop more fundamental idealogies. For example, one idealogy I have is 'Be honest'. It's a very abstract thing. But very fundamental. Each thing I do, each word I say passes through the acid test of honesty. Another ideal I have set for myself 'Never take a decision in the influence of fear.' Many of such idealogies are there. They are very robust, abstract, and hard to implement. But once we start working hard to implement them, they affect the life and our development in a magical way. Think about it.
* Develop some other interests apart from acad.s. Sports, arts, photography, drama, debating, dance, astronomy, electronics, computers, music, literature, travelling, social work... (the list is unending) Involve in extra curricular activities which make you more active and involved. That definitely rules out watching TV, or movies as good hobbies. Restrict movies to an occasional indulgence, not a habit. One mandatory hobby for a scholar is to read. Read a lot of good books. Novel, stories, essays, poetry, travelogues, philosophy...even pornography. Be a voracious reader. Reading is one habit worth cultivating.
3. Bad Habits
------------------
It's time for you to become a man, I know. You have already started handling all your affairs yourself. You already are a man now. A grown up individual. An adult! I was perhaps not so smart as you are during those days of early youth. But I do remember how it feels to become an adult. How we crave to become an adult! But remember one thing. There'll be lots of things which will appear to be things that grownups do. But there's nothing grownup about them. I am talking about bad habits. I don't ask you to keep away from all that in a scared manner. But the greatest proof of your maturity would be not to fall prey to bad habits. If you want to experience anything to satisfy your curiosity, go ahead. Do whatever you feel like! Just remember. Drinking, smoking, movies, eating out, ...nothing is bad if done once in a while. They start eating on your money, health, personality and character when they turn into habits. Don't ever let that happen. Everything rests upon you.
4. Relations
----------------
This is by far the trickiest of all things I want to tell you. You have entered a completely new world. The relations you will share with the people around you will be way different from the relations you have had till now. There will be grown up people who are not your parents and relatives, there will be classmates with very different beliefs and upbringing, there will girls who are not your sisters! It is obvious that you will get into a variety of relations: social, professional, personal, romantic...
Relations are very good as experiences. There's no promise that relations will always have happy endings. You may have teachers who are not happy with you. You may have friends who are jealous of you and do backstabbing. You may love a girl who doesn't love you, or may have to deal with a girl loving you for whom you don't have any feelings.
Relations are complex. They are sources of bitter experiences, as often as of sweet experiences. If you are able to carry yourself across all those bitter and sweet experiences, you will always come out a more refined character, a better person than before.
Always remember. A man who handles his relations with others (and even himself) is the strongest of all. Relations will often be stormy. They will often tend to make you take decisions in a fit of emotions. Never, ever, let that happen. Always, keep your head straight. Act correctly and confidently.
I know all this stuff about relations that I am telling might be appearing very puzzling to you. Preserve this letter. When in future you feel you are indeed going through a relationship problem, come back and read this piece again.
5. Friends
-------------
How you choose your friends now will fundamentally affect course of your future life. The people you like to hang out with most precisely defines your own personality and tastes. The circle you create around yourself will then determine most of the activities you involve in. So choose your friends well. One thumb rule is: Stay with good people. You will have choices of mixing around with a variety of people. Good people, rich people, powerful people, trendy and stylish people, funloving people, capable people etc etc etc. Which group will you choose? Qualities like hardwork, simplicity, sincerity, honesty etc are far higher than qualities like intelligence, beauty, richness and strength. Respect and love a good person much more than you love a capable person. A capable person 'can' do good things; a good person 'will' do good things. If you have to choose between capable people and good people as your friends, choose the good people.
6. Your Pocket
--------------------
Learn to manage your money well. I understand that I am talking to a guy of the next generation. So, I will not talk anything against being ambitious. Nor will I talk about 'Simple living and High Thinking.' I understand that philosophy must have lost its charm with young people like you. I will give a very simple practical suggestion. Manage your pocket well. Understand what money you have. Determine your expenditure accordingly. Keep a first principle: You must save something. Make it a habit to always have so much in your account that if somebody needs money, you should be in a position to give it to him (doesn't mean that you give away your money to anybody and everybody). Never run into debts. Never, never! In the worst cases borrow money from your father, from me or any of your close relative. But never from your friends. It's a great feeling to have some money as security in your bank account. It's terrible to owe money to people. Believe me!
I think that's enough lecture for a day. I am sure you will get an indigestion on reading so much lecture. Don't curse me for being so preachy. I am usually not so preachy. I just thought that you would find these thoughts practical and useful during the next 4 formative years of your career. And this is the time to let you have all this. In the coming year, you may get too busy with the everyday way of your life to give all this an especial thought. I suggest, you don't take all this too seriously right now. Just keep coming back to this letter once in a while. If anything in it interests you, we can talk about it in greater detail.
I am fine here. I will try to call you sometime. Good that you got a mobile now.
Good to hear that you are happy there. That makes me happy too.
I had met Billu mama, dadu and didima on Raja mama's wedding. That was more than one and half years ago. I often miss them. But ...
I will not be lecturing you too often. Since, you seem to have already started off with your new life, I will take one single opportunity to give a couple of tips now. Like any good thing, they will be slightly boring. But don't ignore them. If possible, preserve this mail for future reference. Many things written in it, which may appear as nonsense to you now, will make sense to you later.
1. Ragging
---------------
Take ragging in your stride. Unless, there's too much of physical ragging, there's always a scope of handling these situations really smartly. Just keep your cool. Don't get angry or depressed by the way the seniors treat you. A bit of humiliation...that's what you should learn to take during the ragging. The same guys who rag you now will be your good friends tomorrow. Be smart in doing what you are asked to do. Of course, don't be extra smart! Just remember, a person who can walk away gracefully even after being humiliated will never lose his honour. :)
And if possible, swear to yourself that you will not take part in ragging your juniors in your later years. All said and done, ragging is evil. It's essentially an ugly way of releasing one's frustrated unspent energies on juniors. A really silly and immature way of trying to feel superior by scaring the juniors. While you are being subject to it, keep playing safe and don't get into unnecessary broils; but vow not to subject others to ragging when you have a choice. Remember that.
2. Coin, the Great Doctor
----------------------------------
And of course, studies are what you have gone there to do. At any cost, let that never suffer. You have come so far from your home for the first time all alone. Lots of unforeseen experiences are waiting for you here. Lots of things which will turn you from a lad to a man. Learn from all your experiences. You are about to embark on one of the most noble professions, i.e. of a doctor. And being a good doctor doesn't happen by reading a handful of subjects and clearing a handful of exams. Start becoming a doctor from your first day there. Keep it at the back of your mind day in and day out that you have to become a good doctor. Find out what's required to do to become a good doctor. Do them religiously. Certain things that need to be done (according to me) are:
* Do you feel compassion for the suffering? Devise your own ways of aliviating pain for others. Start feeling the joy of forgetting your own pain in order to cure others of their pains.
* Be curious and interested. Learn your subjects as you learn how to live. The skills you acquire now, the realisations you get now, will work as your main strength all your life. Learn them well, and permanently. While doing well in the exams is always an important thing, now it's time for you to start giving it a secondary priority. The first priority should be understand things well and deeply, and develop a strong interest to find out even more.
* Develop a way of living. Time for you to start giving thought to what's important in your life. A bit of philosophical outlook will serve immensely in making you find coherence between your worldly objectives and your inner requirements of self-actualisation. Consider bringing in discipline into your life in your own way. I know this will sound very cryptic right at this point. Never mind! Come back to it next year, then again the year next to that...Each successive year, these words will make more and more sense to you.
* Develop a clear set of idealogies. Don't make stupid rules like 'I will never miss a class' or things like that. You have to develop more fundamental idealogies. For example, one idealogy I have is 'Be honest'. It's a very abstract thing. But very fundamental. Each thing I do, each word I say passes through the acid test of honesty. Another ideal I have set for myself 'Never take a decision in the influence of fear.' Many of such idealogies are there. They are very robust, abstract, and hard to implement. But once we start working hard to implement them, they affect the life and our development in a magical way. Think about it.
* Develop some other interests apart from acad.s. Sports, arts, photography, drama, debating, dance, astronomy, electronics, computers, music, literature, travelling, social work... (the list is unending) Involve in extra curricular activities which make you more active and involved. That definitely rules out watching TV, or movies as good hobbies. Restrict movies to an occasional indulgence, not a habit. One mandatory hobby for a scholar is to read. Read a lot of good books. Novel, stories, essays, poetry, travelogues, philosophy...even pornography. Be a voracious reader. Reading is one habit worth cultivating.
3. Bad Habits
------------------
It's time for you to become a man, I know. You have already started handling all your affairs yourself. You already are a man now. A grown up individual. An adult! I was perhaps not so smart as you are during those days of early youth. But I do remember how it feels to become an adult. How we crave to become an adult! But remember one thing. There'll be lots of things which will appear to be things that grownups do. But there's nothing grownup about them. I am talking about bad habits. I don't ask you to keep away from all that in a scared manner. But the greatest proof of your maturity would be not to fall prey to bad habits. If you want to experience anything to satisfy your curiosity, go ahead. Do whatever you feel like! Just remember. Drinking, smoking, movies, eating out, ...nothing is bad if done once in a while. They start eating on your money, health, personality and character when they turn into habits. Don't ever let that happen. Everything rests upon you.
4. Relations
----------------
This is by far the trickiest of all things I want to tell you. You have entered a completely new world. The relations you will share with the people around you will be way different from the relations you have had till now. There will be grown up people who are not your parents and relatives, there will be classmates with very different beliefs and upbringing, there will girls who are not your sisters! It is obvious that you will get into a variety of relations: social, professional, personal, romantic...
Relations are very good as experiences. There's no promise that relations will always have happy endings. You may have teachers who are not happy with you. You may have friends who are jealous of you and do backstabbing. You may love a girl who doesn't love you, or may have to deal with a girl loving you for whom you don't have any feelings.
Relations are complex. They are sources of bitter experiences, as often as of sweet experiences. If you are able to carry yourself across all those bitter and sweet experiences, you will always come out a more refined character, a better person than before.
Always remember. A man who handles his relations with others (and even himself) is the strongest of all. Relations will often be stormy. They will often tend to make you take decisions in a fit of emotions. Never, ever, let that happen. Always, keep your head straight. Act correctly and confidently.
I know all this stuff about relations that I am telling might be appearing very puzzling to you. Preserve this letter. When in future you feel you are indeed going through a relationship problem, come back and read this piece again.
5. Friends
-------------
How you choose your friends now will fundamentally affect course of your future life. The people you like to hang out with most precisely defines your own personality and tastes. The circle you create around yourself will then determine most of the activities you involve in. So choose your friends well. One thumb rule is: Stay with good people. You will have choices of mixing around with a variety of people. Good people, rich people, powerful people, trendy and stylish people, funloving people, capable people etc etc etc. Which group will you choose? Qualities like hardwork, simplicity, sincerity, honesty etc are far higher than qualities like intelligence, beauty, richness and strength. Respect and love a good person much more than you love a capable person. A capable person 'can' do good things; a good person 'will' do good things. If you have to choose between capable people and good people as your friends, choose the good people.
6. Your Pocket
--------------------
Learn to manage your money well. I understand that I am talking to a guy of the next generation. So, I will not talk anything against being ambitious. Nor will I talk about 'Simple living and High Thinking.' I understand that philosophy must have lost its charm with young people like you. I will give a very simple practical suggestion. Manage your pocket well. Understand what money you have. Determine your expenditure accordingly. Keep a first principle: You must save something. Make it a habit to always have so much in your account that if somebody needs money, you should be in a position to give it to him (doesn't mean that you give away your money to anybody and everybody). Never run into debts. Never, never! In the worst cases borrow money from your father, from me or any of your close relative. But never from your friends. It's a great feeling to have some money as security in your bank account. It's terrible to owe money to people. Believe me!
I think that's enough lecture for a day. I am sure you will get an indigestion on reading so much lecture. Don't curse me for being so preachy. I am usually not so preachy. I just thought that you would find these thoughts practical and useful during the next 4 formative years of your career. And this is the time to let you have all this. In the coming year, you may get too busy with the everyday way of your life to give all this an especial thought. I suggest, you don't take all this too seriously right now. Just keep coming back to this letter once in a while. If anything in it interests you, we can talk about it in greater detail.
I am fine here. I will try to call you sometime. Good that you got a mobile now.
Hindu Religion and Idol Worship
Hi Mani,
That's really news that Hindu scriptures have condemned idol
worship. I too had come across some sanskrit scriptures with direct
mention of Jesus. They are not as old as the Vedas (which are said to have
descended to men much before Jesus was born). Those scriptures are all
after Christ, with direct mentions of his name. It's even hinted that
Jesus had visited India during his life time.
As for the sanskrit rendering of the arguments against
idol-worship, they can be ignored (as I had said, my faith in scriptures
is to the figurative extents). Believe me, I would have equally easily
ignored any suggestions which gave directions that idol worship is
the only valid way of worship. I think it's all a matter of love of lord
and expression of 'bhakti'. Whichever one finds appropriate in his case.
Man has praised the Lord from time immemorial. Scriptures have come
only later. Prayers have brought peace to men even before anybody was
there to tell them how to pray. The only important point is : Man has love
for the divine and wants to reach him. Sincerity pays. Not the method.
I would also like to draw your attention to yet another fact.
Hinduism is not exactly a religion. It's a massive framework which has
evolved to address a large society, constituting of enlightened saints to
the man on the street. Inadvertently, there are some surface
level discrepancies. What is said in one part of a text, may seem to be
contradicted by another. The reason is that they have been written
separated largely by time and space, inside a rapidly evolving society
that's said to be the oldest on the planet. For instance, Rigveda has the
mention of worshiping Agni and Swaha, which are just material
representations of the divine. All other Vedas came later. So, a
contradiction arises.
I would also like to draw your attention to yet another fact.
Hinduism is not exactly a religion. It's a massive framework which has
evolved to address a large society, constituting of enlightened saints to
the man on the street. Inadvertently, there are some surface
level discrepancies. What is said in one part of a text, may seem to be
contradicted by another. The reason is that they have been written
separated largely by time and space, inside a rapidly evolving society
that's said to be the oldest on the planet. For instance, Rigveda has the
mention of worshiping Agni and Swaha, which are just material
representations of the divine. All other Vedas came later. So, a
contradiction arises.
The essense, or wisdom, of Hindu texts lies not in any of these
things. One may truly ignore them. There're far more abstract descriptions
of the divine in the form of 'Brahma', 'Brahman', and 'Vishwaroop'. There
is this concept of 'Sat-chit-anand' too. These constitute the essential
experience of the wisest sages of Hindu philosophy. The uniformity in them
is mind-boggling. And they are in no disagreement with the experiences of
great people of other places and other faiths.
In Hindu scriptures, there is this term 'Yoga'. In its original
sense,
it's the act of reaching out to God, and ultimately becoming 'one' with
Him. As you may be knowing, Yoga means addition. There are several ways of
yoga, all leading to the same goal. Bhakti yoga, Karma Yoga, Gyan Yoga
etc. Bhakti yoga is the way of being a bhakt (devotee), and expressing the
love through prayers. Karma yoga is working hard treating the output as an
offering to the Lord's divine intentions. Gyan Yoga is to learn what is
there is to learn and spread enlightenment by the way of learning and
teaching.
All this is said to lead man closer to God. Far from any strict
recommendations for a type of worship, originally, there's no such
restriction that only worshiping leads man closer to the lord. In a sense,
everything we do goes as an offering to God. All depends on what's there
in our heart; what motivates us into doing our deeds.
I have even come across similar references in other religious
texts. Please, if you have some material of Bible text to this effect, do
forward.
I think this exchange may potentially grow very fruitful. I am
very much eager to know more about philosophical foundations in
Christianity. I would be very happy to tell you more of the little I have
learnt about Hindu philosophy. What I tell will not necessarily be of
religious nature. I think all religious faiths have some wise portions and
and some not so wise portions. The wise portions bring out the common
thinking (since God is only one); while unwise portions set one believer
against another. According to me, there's little point in discussing very
surface level things. Most of them are handed over to us from our
ancestors and cultural background. And that's a strong force. Going
against them involves a lot of difficulty and trauma. (e.g. My going
vegetarian against the family customs involved a lot of embarrassing
situations in the family). Two intellectuals can talk for or against them.
Two devotees can't talk about them without hurting severely hurt or
getting hurt severely, since it's emotions that bind them to customs, not
their descretion.
Let's always stick to discussing the wise portions only like two
intellectuals, and leave the rest to others!
Thanks,
Sujit
That's really news that Hindu scriptures have condemned idol
worship. I too had come across some sanskrit scriptures with direct
mention of Jesus. They are not as old as the Vedas (which are said to have
descended to men much before Jesus was born). Those scriptures are all
after Christ, with direct mentions of his name. It's even hinted that
Jesus had visited India during his life time.
As for the sanskrit rendering of the arguments against
idol-worship, they can be ignored (as I had said, my faith in scriptures
is to the figurative extents). Believe me, I would have equally easily
ignored any suggestions which gave directions that idol worship is
the only valid way of worship. I think it's all a matter of love of lord
and expression of 'bhakti'. Whichever one finds appropriate in his case.
Man has praised the Lord from time immemorial. Scriptures have come
only later. Prayers have brought peace to men even before anybody was
there to tell them how to pray. The only important point is : Man has love
for the divine and wants to reach him. Sincerity pays. Not the method.
I would also like to draw your attention to yet another fact.
Hinduism is not exactly a religion. It's a massive framework which has
evolved to address a large society, constituting of enlightened saints to
the man on the street. Inadvertently, there are some surface
level discrepancies. What is said in one part of a text, may seem to be
contradicted by another. The reason is that they have been written
separated largely by time and space, inside a rapidly evolving society
that's said to be the oldest on the planet. For instance, Rigveda has the
mention of worshiping Agni and Swaha, which are just material
representations of the divine. All other Vedas came later. So, a
contradiction arises.
I would also like to draw your attention to yet another fact.
Hinduism is not exactly a religion. It's a massive framework which has
evolved to address a large society, constituting of enlightened saints to
the man on the street. Inadvertently, there are some surface
level discrepancies. What is said in one part of a text, may seem to be
contradicted by another. The reason is that they have been written
separated largely by time and space, inside a rapidly evolving society
that's said to be the oldest on the planet. For instance, Rigveda has the
mention of worshiping Agni and Swaha, which are just material
representations of the divine. All other Vedas came later. So, a
contradiction arises.
The essense, or wisdom, of Hindu texts lies not in any of these
things. One may truly ignore them. There're far more abstract descriptions
of the divine in the form of 'Brahma', 'Brahman', and 'Vishwaroop'. There
is this concept of 'Sat-chit-anand' too. These constitute the essential
experience of the wisest sages of Hindu philosophy. The uniformity in them
is mind-boggling. And they are in no disagreement with the experiences of
great people of other places and other faiths.
In Hindu scriptures, there is this term 'Yoga'. In its original
sense,
it's the act of reaching out to God, and ultimately becoming 'one' with
Him. As you may be knowing, Yoga means addition. There are several ways of
yoga, all leading to the same goal. Bhakti yoga, Karma Yoga, Gyan Yoga
etc. Bhakti yoga is the way of being a bhakt (devotee), and expressing the
love through prayers. Karma yoga is working hard treating the output as an
offering to the Lord's divine intentions. Gyan Yoga is to learn what is
there is to learn and spread enlightenment by the way of learning and
teaching.
All this is said to lead man closer to God. Far from any strict
recommendations for a type of worship, originally, there's no such
restriction that only worshiping leads man closer to the lord. In a sense,
everything we do goes as an offering to God. All depends on what's there
in our heart; what motivates us into doing our deeds.
I have even come across similar references in other religious
texts. Please, if you have some material of Bible text to this effect, do
forward.
I think this exchange may potentially grow very fruitful. I am
very much eager to know more about philosophical foundations in
Christianity. I would be very happy to tell you more of the little I have
learnt about Hindu philosophy. What I tell will not necessarily be of
religious nature. I think all religious faiths have some wise portions and
and some not so wise portions. The wise portions bring out the common
thinking (since God is only one); while unwise portions set one believer
against another. According to me, there's little point in discussing very
surface level things. Most of them are handed over to us from our
ancestors and cultural background. And that's a strong force. Going
against them involves a lot of difficulty and trauma. (e.g. My going
vegetarian against the family customs involved a lot of embarrassing
situations in the family). Two intellectuals can talk for or against them.
Two devotees can't talk about them without hurting severely hurt or
getting hurt severely, since it's emotions that bind them to customs, not
their descretion.
Let's always stick to discussing the wise portions only like two
intellectuals, and leave the rest to others!
Thanks,
Sujit
Truth and Reality
(Imported from my old weblog January 9, 2005)
It would be wrong for me to starting hailing my ideas when I can't claim to have understood yours well enough. I have gone through your letter twice (apart from having read your essay a number of times piecewise). It looks you have a lot of things to say. You might have packed them all very cleverly in one single letter of yours. But that won't do! You must wait through several exchanges of words before the shape of your ideas starts reflecting correctly and completely in the mind of your listener. Conversations (written or spoken) are very slow media of communication, you know. Especially when your listener is such a dumbo like me! ;)
For the time being I will just make the following points.
One (a small one): give me some time before I say that I agree or disagree with your thoughts.
Two (a long one): a word of defense for the statement 'truth is a tricky concept.' There were accompanying statements in my previous mail. They hint at all that I am going to say in the following lines. I will try to elaborate their sense further in the text below.
Grossly there are two perspective to truth. One is the physical aspect. In very scientific terms, it's the physical description of the all the physical facts pertaining to the matter at hand, as they are. We may name them 'positive' facts. Hence, 'normative' (matters involving norms) aspects should be kept aside while describing this 'truth'. And if there are no normative matters, question of falsehood, manipulation etc. will not arise in this description. It is the 'fact' or the 'reality' (as MBK would have me say). The problem with this is that a man can usually never hope to grasp the full 'reality' in almost all situations. Basing one's next move on the 'reality' (which by its definition has be complete) is defficient, since in most cases, it can never be figured out. It needs a complete knowledge of everything in the universe. That needs a mammoth exploration. The whole humanity is busy in that for the last couple of thousand years; and we seem to have just started!
The other perspective is the following: 'What's going on in my mind?' That's the truth I was talking about. And if you know that, it seems amazingly easy to take a wise decision, whether you know the 'reality' or not. But on the other hand, mastering that needs an equally difficult exploration of the inner universe. I personally realise that my knowledge of it is equally deficient as my knowledge about the outer universe. For instance, the various possible reason why I sit here writing a letter to you that I can cite are as follows: 'I think this is an interesting topic'; 'I think you are an interesting person'; 'I hope you may turn out to be a very pretty girl (obviously a lot younger, but who cares!) and that makes the whole thing very interesting'; 'I don't have anything better to do, and I am addicted to write and philosophise'; 'I think I am great philosopher, and how dare you comment about my words'; 'I think you are bright youngster with lots and lots of ideas and sincerity. I should play my role in your explorations and examination, however meagre my role may turn out to be.' Which of the above is true? May be none, and their may be some other reason don't even imagine the existence of. May be all. If all, then what's their share in the overall intention. Over and above that, these reasons themselves mayn't be independent. One may lie underneath another. There could be a hierarchy. Now, say, I have a simple rule: 'I will do something only if my intention is good.' With all the above possible reasons of writing to you, how do I know if I am doing it for an acceptable reason or not? I don't know! And I am talking about myself. Somewhere I have to use some kind of gut feeling. My knowledge that it's a good etiquette to reply to correspondences helps me in taking this decision. Amazingly, my knowledge about myself doesn't help me take such a simple decision as this!
Does that give some hint as to why I said that 'truth is a tricky concept?' You may already have learnt earlier that westerners call this study of oneself as 'psychoanalysis'. Oriental people call this study as 'spirituality'. The process of self-exploration is called 'introspection'.
Three: 'Theology' is a branch of 'philosophy' which tries to explain the universe assuming the existence of God. God has been defined in various manners. Examples are of 'Creator', and 'Controller.'
If you will allow me to take a step further into giving a suggestion, I would request you to go through more authoritative texts on theology. It's usually not just the silly stuff about 'God' and prayers that we get from our elders. It too has a deep spirit of scientific enquiry in it. There methods are quite similar to those of scientists, albiet at an abstract level. Personally, I don't find myself a fan of lots of such subjects. But I understand that lots of great people have worked in that area and all their findings can't be silly and crap. I find people accepting an idea without examining very obnoxious. I don't want to be obnoxious by rejecting an idea without sufficiently examining it. Till I am able to do that, I talk with respect about them, 'theology', and 'theologists' (e.g. Vivekananda) included. :)
Let's end it here for now, and start waiting to see what you have to add. Will be happy to carry on the discussion for as long as it interests you. :D
Best wishes,
Sujit
PS: I am excluding MBK's (Bharath's, i.e.) id from the list. I find it more comfortable to be talking to one person than giving a speech to an audience. We can sure include him where things need checkpointing. You may sure forward it to him if you want.
B Dheepikaa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Think you know me by now.I wrote 'the foolish maxim.'
> I'm so so sorry for such a belated reply.I needed
> sometime to think, actually.I was flattered seeing
> your mail.:) Thanks a ton. I would also be very
> pleased if I get genuine comments furthermore.
> All of us hold more or less the same idea. When I said, "Nothing is basically right or wrong"
> when Bharath wrote, "Right or wrong is never absolute
> and it's which depends on if things are favourable to
> us or not."
> And, you had suggested, "truth is a tricky concept".
>
> But I don't think truth is as tricky as we suppose it
> to be. I think we know we're dishonest or untruthful,
> when we actually are. I can agree right or wrong is never absolute. But
> truth is never inabsolute.
>
> I admire the way you said... 'Deep down we are good
> people but are cultured to think ourselves vile.' I
> wished I were able to think that!:)
>
> "Could it then be better that we try hard to be honest
> with 'ourselves' regarding our inner thoughts and
> motives behind things?" This was your question. It would definitely be better.
> But,can I make you answer it for yourself by
> asking you, 'HOw OFTEN DO WE TRY?'
The basic theme is all about honesty and truth that
doesn't cause 'any' harm to others and not about the
merciless honesty in the name of God or as you said,
under Freudian conclusions.
Doesn't cause 'any' harm to others can be substituted
with - causing less harm to others, perhaps.
I also think,logical honesty is not honesty at all.
But then,I agree with the idea of practising logical
honesty. I would prefer the logic being made
favourable to everybody if not for your own self only.
But lately, I think, there's not always a WIN-WIN.
There has to be a WIN-LOSE in certain circumstances.
We cannot always make rules favourable to
everybody.Like a law needs to have a person violating
it - because what might be favourable to you might not
be favourable to me.
You might win ,I might lose.
The theologies are based on the fact that we should be
indifferent to the loss. But the possessiveness of
power(I consider it the most
brilliant human quality) will never let us do that.
So, the understanding of our self can be an idea
worthwhile.
I think we can frame rules for ourselves (when we
actually can do) to be favourable to the majority of
the human folk.
It is WE who live and not only YOU or I.
All that human can do is keep the well being of the
world, by humans, or resources. But then there's still
a confusion if we are discounting the minority.
The myriad differences with attitudes, interests and
lives is definitely a constraining factor.
I finally agree with you.
Practising hard to look within and know better
everytime why we are doing something - one of the best
ideas.
I liked this part - 'KNOW BETTER AND BETTER
EVERYTIME.'I believe you were able to suggest this
'coz you practise it.
We, as humans grow every moment we live here.
Every moment we grow and everyday we grow.
All we could do is, Sujith, look into the extent of
our growth in our lives to feel contented about
ourselves that we had not been as vile as we had
supposed ourselves to be.
The challenge starts now. It's easier said than done.
Can we also adapt to the habit of making our
co-existing humans think for themselves to the extent
we can? The least we could do!
We have to live an inter-related life and a communal
livelihood. So we need to sacrifice certain things
which we need at certain times when the necessity is
at large to another person. Even if it is honesty or
truth when necessary.
Like how we do at home...:)
It's all about thinking ourselves one among the home
inmates of this world (which we do less often) and
then look into ourselves to know more about ourselves
for the betterment of lives.
You've given me an invaluable piece of theory which I
could not have thought for myself, ever - "deep down
inside we're good ppl"
I'm expecting your reply
It would be wrong for me to starting hailing my ideas when I can't claim to have understood yours well enough. I have gone through your letter twice (apart from having read your essay a number of times piecewise). It looks you have a lot of things to say. You might have packed them all very cleverly in one single letter of yours. But that won't do! You must wait through several exchanges of words before the shape of your ideas starts reflecting correctly and completely in the mind of your listener. Conversations (written or spoken) are very slow media of communication, you know. Especially when your listener is such a dumbo like me! ;)
For the time being I will just make the following points.
One (a small one): give me some time before I say that I agree or disagree with your thoughts.
Two (a long one): a word of defense for the statement 'truth is a tricky concept.' There were accompanying statements in my previous mail. They hint at all that I am going to say in the following lines. I will try to elaborate their sense further in the text below.
Grossly there are two perspective to truth. One is the physical aspect. In very scientific terms, it's the physical description of the all the physical facts pertaining to the matter at hand, as they are. We may name them 'positive' facts. Hence, 'normative' (matters involving norms) aspects should be kept aside while describing this 'truth'. And if there are no normative matters, question of falsehood, manipulation etc. will not arise in this description. It is the 'fact' or the 'reality' (as MBK would have me say). The problem with this is that a man can usually never hope to grasp the full 'reality' in almost all situations. Basing one's next move on the 'reality' (which by its definition has be complete) is defficient, since in most cases, it can never be figured out. It needs a complete knowledge of everything in the universe. That needs a mammoth exploration. The whole humanity is busy in that for the last couple of thousand years; and we seem to have just started!
The other perspective is the following: 'What's going on in my mind?' That's the truth I was talking about. And if you know that, it seems amazingly easy to take a wise decision, whether you know the 'reality' or not. But on the other hand, mastering that needs an equally difficult exploration of the inner universe. I personally realise that my knowledge of it is equally deficient as my knowledge about the outer universe. For instance, the various possible reason why I sit here writing a letter to you that I can cite are as follows: 'I think this is an interesting topic'; 'I think you are an interesting person'; 'I hope you may turn out to be a very pretty girl (obviously a lot younger, but who cares!) and that makes the whole thing very interesting'; 'I don't have anything better to do, and I am addicted to write and philosophise'; 'I think I am great philosopher, and how dare you comment about my words'; 'I think you are bright youngster with lots and lots of ideas and sincerity. I should play my role in your explorations and examination, however meagre my role may turn out to be.' Which of the above is true? May be none, and their may be some other reason don't even imagine the existence of. May be all. If all, then what's their share in the overall intention. Over and above that, these reasons themselves mayn't be independent. One may lie underneath another. There could be a hierarchy. Now, say, I have a simple rule: 'I will do something only if my intention is good.' With all the above possible reasons of writing to you, how do I know if I am doing it for an acceptable reason or not? I don't know! And I am talking about myself. Somewhere I have to use some kind of gut feeling. My knowledge that it's a good etiquette to reply to correspondences helps me in taking this decision. Amazingly, my knowledge about myself doesn't help me take such a simple decision as this!
Does that give some hint as to why I said that 'truth is a tricky concept?' You may already have learnt earlier that westerners call this study of oneself as 'psychoanalysis'. Oriental people call this study as 'spirituality'. The process of self-exploration is called 'introspection'.
Three: 'Theology' is a branch of 'philosophy' which tries to explain the universe assuming the existence of God. God has been defined in various manners. Examples are of 'Creator', and 'Controller.'
If you will allow me to take a step further into giving a suggestion, I would request you to go through more authoritative texts on theology. It's usually not just the silly stuff about 'God' and prayers that we get from our elders. It too has a deep spirit of scientific enquiry in it. There methods are quite similar to those of scientists, albiet at an abstract level. Personally, I don't find myself a fan of lots of such subjects. But I understand that lots of great people have worked in that area and all their findings can't be silly and crap. I find people accepting an idea without examining very obnoxious. I don't want to be obnoxious by rejecting an idea without sufficiently examining it. Till I am able to do that, I talk with respect about them, 'theology', and 'theologists' (e.g. Vivekananda) included. :)
Let's end it here for now, and start waiting to see what you have to add. Will be happy to carry on the discussion for as long as it interests you. :D
Best wishes,
Sujit
PS: I am excluding MBK's (Bharath's, i.e.) id from the list. I find it more comfortable to be talking to one person than giving a speech to an audience. We can sure include him where things need checkpointing. You may sure forward it to him if you want.
B Dheepikaa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Think you know me by now.I wrote 'the foolish maxim.'
> I'm so so sorry for such a belated reply.I needed
> sometime to think, actually.I was flattered seeing
> your mail.:) Thanks a ton. I would also be very
> pleased if I get genuine comments furthermore.
> All of us hold more or less the same idea. When I said, "Nothing is basically right or wrong"
> when Bharath wrote, "Right or wrong is never absolute
> and it's which depends on if things are favourable to
> us or not."
> And, you had suggested, "truth is a tricky concept".
>
> But I don't think truth is as tricky as we suppose it
> to be. I think we know we're dishonest or untruthful,
> when we actually are. I can agree right or wrong is never absolute. But
> truth is never inabsolute.
>
> I admire the way you said... 'Deep down we are good
> people but are cultured to think ourselves vile.' I
> wished I were able to think that!:)
>
> "Could it then be better that we try hard to be honest
> with 'ourselves' regarding our inner thoughts and
> motives behind things?" This was your question. It would definitely be better.
> But,can I make you answer it for yourself by
> asking you, 'HOw OFTEN DO WE TRY?'
The basic theme is all about honesty and truth that
doesn't cause 'any' harm to others and not about the
merciless honesty in the name of God or as you said,
under Freudian conclusions.
Doesn't cause 'any' harm to others can be substituted
with - causing less harm to others, perhaps.
I also think,logical honesty is not honesty at all.
But then,I agree with the idea of practising logical
honesty. I would prefer the logic being made
favourable to everybody if not for your own self only.
But lately, I think, there's not always a WIN-WIN.
There has to be a WIN-LOSE in certain circumstances.
We cannot always make rules favourable to
everybody.Like a law needs to have a person violating
it - because what might be favourable to you might not
be favourable to me.
You might win ,I might lose.
The theologies are based on the fact that we should be
indifferent to the loss. But the possessiveness of
power(I consider it the most
brilliant human quality) will never let us do that.
So, the understanding of our self can be an idea
worthwhile.
I think we can frame rules for ourselves (when we
actually can do) to be favourable to the majority of
the human folk.
It is WE who live and not only YOU or I.
All that human can do is keep the well being of the
world, by humans, or resources. But then there's still
a confusion if we are discounting the minority.
The myriad differences with attitudes, interests and
lives is definitely a constraining factor.
I finally agree with you.
Practising hard to look within and know better
everytime why we are doing something - one of the best
ideas.
I liked this part - 'KNOW BETTER AND BETTER
EVERYTIME.'I believe you were able to suggest this
'coz you practise it.
We, as humans grow every moment we live here.
Every moment we grow and everyday we grow.
All we could do is, Sujith, look into the extent of
our growth in our lives to feel contented about
ourselves that we had not been as vile as we had
supposed ourselves to be.
The challenge starts now. It's easier said than done.
Can we also adapt to the habit of making our
co-existing humans think for themselves to the extent
we can? The least we could do!
We have to live an inter-related life and a communal
livelihood. So we need to sacrifice certain things
which we need at certain times when the necessity is
at large to another person. Even if it is honesty or
truth when necessary.
Like how we do at home...:)
It's all about thinking ourselves one among the home
inmates of this world (which we do less often) and
then look into ourselves to know more about ourselves
for the betterment of lives.
You've given me an invaluable piece of theory which I
could not have thought for myself, ever - "deep down
inside we're good ppl"
I'm expecting your reply
Acts of Faith
(Imported from my old web log May 16, 2005)
(Some thought-provoking questions. My Analysis is attached below)
> Isn't it strange ?
>
> Isn't it strange how Rs. 20/=
> seems like such a large
> amount when
> you donate it to temple, but
> such a small amount
> when you go shopping?
>
> Isn't it strange how 2 hours
> seem so long when
> you're at place of worship, and how
> short they seem when you're
> watching a good movie?
>
> Isn't it strange that you can't
> find a word to say when
> you're praying,
> but you have no trouble
> thinking what to talk about
> with a friend?
>
> Isn't it strange how difficult
> and boring it is to read
> one chapter of
> the Bible/ Quran / Gita, but how easy
> it is to read 100 pages of
> a popular novel?
>
> Isn't it strange how everyone
> wants front-row-tickets
> to concerts or
> games, but they do whatever
> is possible to sit at the last
> row in a holy place?
>
> Isn't it strange how we need to
> know about an event for
> temple 2-3
> weeks before the day so we can
> include it in our agenda, but we can
> adjust it for other events in
> the last minute?
>
> Isn't it strange how difficult it
> is to learn a fact about
> God to share it
> with others, but how easy
> it is to learn, understand,
> extend and repeat gossip?
>
> Isn't it strange how we
> believe everything
> that magazines and newspapers
> say, but we question the words in the
> Bible and other holy books?
>
> Isn't it strange how everyone
> wants a place in
> heaven, but they don't want
> to believe, do, or say anything
> to get there?
>
> Isn't it strange how we send
> jokes in e-mails
> and they are forwarded
> right away,
> but when we are going to send
> messages about God, we think
> about it twice before we share
> it with others?
>
> IT'S STRANGE ISN'T IT?
>
>
(My Reply)
Strange! Hm!
Put another way:
1. Why shopping and not donating in temple?
2. Why a good movie, why not a place of worship?
3. Why talking with a friend, why not with God?
4. Why is it boring to read one chapter of Bible/Quran/Gita, and why not a popular novel?
5. Why 2-3 days' planning for temple, and no planning required for other things?
6. Why front row in a theatre, why rear seat in a praying place?
7. Why it's difficult to learn a thing about God, while it's easy to learn and spread gossip?
8. Why belief in Newspaper, magazines, and not believe in holy books?
9. Why wish to have a place in heaven without being ready to invest anything in reserving that seat?
10. Why forward jokes and stuff, and not messages about God?
Just tried to rephrase the questions to make them sound less like they are trying to make me feel guilty about those facts even before I start analysing them. Now they are in a more valid neutral state. Then, on second thought:
1. Easier to feel that I am doing shopping for myself and my loved ones. Is that strange?
2. Easier to feel that I am enjoying myself in a movie than in a place of worship. Is that strange?
3. Easier to feel that we know our friend. He is right there in front of me. Faulty, mortal, but visible going by my simple perceptions. Is it strange to believe and feel more comfortable with a friend, than a God?
4. Easier to feel that I am enjoying myself reading a novel than reading Bible/Quran/Gita. Is that strange?
5. Easier to feel that I am going to use my time elsewhere for myself, and time in the worship place for nothing. Is that strange?
6. Easier to feel that in theatre we are enjoying ourselves. In a worship place we have gone for some other reason. We feel more enthusiastic about something which is giving us fun. Well, is that strange?
7. It's fun gossiping. The fun thing about them is they don't say we should learn them. We can as well ignore. A biteful of gossip goes well, with a sip of coffee! Is that strange?
8. It's easier to believe people who use the vocabulary and context that we understand. Usually it's easier to respect people who use words, languages, and concepts we don't understand. But very difficult to believe them. Is that strange?
9. I would like to spend a week or two alone in a lonely beach with Sonali Bendre (or Aishwarya Rai, or Pamela Anderson, or Carmen Electra, or Alicia Silverstone or any of those hot ones...). What! You want me to invest something for that? Forget it! I don't even know if such a scheme exists. Is that strange?
10. Easier to feel that we are spreading smiles by sending jokes. Is that strange?
I think it's more natural to feel inclined to do things we directly associate ourselves with, regardless of whether they are right or wrong, good or bad. Associating oneself with God is often not easy for many. I think that can happen only in the ways mentioned below:
1. You have grown in a religious environment, and faith has come to you as a natural thing. This includes two kinds:
1. a) Naturally religious environment. Other options are nearly absent. Faith comes like a daily habit: e.g. brushing your teeth, taking bath etc. One never finds a necessity to question these habits and faith.
1. b) Even if other options are visible, there is some kind of grading system visible, wherein it is deemed easier to be in good books of parents and elders by doing pooja daily.
2. You come across an earth-shattering experience which completely shakes your beliefs.
3. Logical experience, which define the directives of life based on 'correct and incorrect things,' rather than on 'good and bad.' Providing logically consistent and comprehensible models of the world, which serve purposes we consider of practical utility. Argument systems which suggest questioning the simple, natural maxim of 'It's my life, and I will do what increases it's value for me', will not fair well, when it comes to changing people's belief. Take the example of classical music. Its beauty gets visible only through training, or culturing from childhood. The other way to appreciate it is the way street-singers do: 'By realising, grain by grain, the beauty in it that is absent in what we do. We realise that when we want to characterise and codify our concept of musical beauty, it will give birth to some system of classical music. Meanwhile, who are not interested in music should be left alone. We should wait for the day when when he feels a song sing out when he hears a cuckoo sing, a church-bell ring, or a violin give words to the wordless feelings in his heart. He himself will come back to you that day and ask: 'Hey, I know you know how cuckoo sings. Let me hear that sound again, again again...'
Faith should be born out of simple spiritual experiences, which gives us techniques of generating joy, from within ourselves, for experiencing which we are otherwise dependent on the environment. Faith will naturally arise when the source of that joy is within sight through sustained investigation and practice.
Exactly the reverse of faith may also happen due to the same set of reasons. For instance:
Sometimes it's considered cool and impressive to be disbeliever. So people turn disbelievers to impress others.
Faith can't come when we can't associate with it. Yes, sitting in the temple will never win against watching a movie. Unless, the concept of 'amusement' is redefined. Nobody can start loving sitting and doing pooja just because doing pooja is considered good. It is on the people who have benefitted from doing pooja to communicate to others how it has benefitted them (of course, if the care that the rest of their brethen reap the fruits of faith too; because unless they care, are they believers?) It can be done by proving that indeed having fun is strange and getting bored is not. That can't be done, I am sure. So the other thing to prove is : 'There's some kind of enjoyment in those seemingly boring acts. It needs a bit of training and patience in the beginning, like most good things of the world. But there's great fun in having faith.'
If somebody convinces me that being a believer is great fun, I will consider it. Otherwise, it will be very strange for to do Acts of Faith, even if they are good.
(Some thought-provoking questions. My Analysis is attached below)
> Isn't it strange ?
>
> Isn't it strange how Rs. 20/=
> seems like such a large
> amount when
> you donate it to temple, but
> such a small amount
> when you go shopping?
>
> Isn't it strange how 2 hours
> seem so long when
> you're at place of worship, and how
> short they seem when you're
> watching a good movie?
>
> Isn't it strange that you can't
> find a word to say when
> you're praying,
> but you have no trouble
> thinking what to talk about
> with a friend?
>
> Isn't it strange how difficult
> and boring it is to read
> one chapter of
> the Bible/ Quran / Gita, but how easy
> it is to read 100 pages of
> a popular novel?
>
> Isn't it strange how everyone
> wants front-row-tickets
> to concerts or
> games, but they do whatever
> is possible to sit at the last
> row in a holy place?
>
> Isn't it strange how we need to
> know about an event for
> temple 2-3
> weeks before the day so we can
> include it in our agenda, but we can
> adjust it for other events in
> the last minute?
>
> Isn't it strange how difficult it
> is to learn a fact about
> God to share it
> with others, but how easy
> it is to learn, understand,
> extend and repeat gossip?
>
> Isn't it strange how we
> believe everything
> that magazines and newspapers
> say, but we question the words in the
> Bible and other holy books?
>
> Isn't it strange how everyone
> wants a place in
> heaven, but they don't want
> to believe, do, or say anything
> to get there?
>
> Isn't it strange how we send
> jokes in e-mails
> and they are forwarded
> right away,
> but when we are going to send
> messages about God, we think
> about it twice before we share
> it with others?
>
> IT'S STRANGE ISN'T IT?
>
>
(My Reply)
Strange! Hm!
Put another way:
1. Why shopping and not donating in temple?
2. Why a good movie, why not a place of worship?
3. Why talking with a friend, why not with God?
4. Why is it boring to read one chapter of Bible/Quran/Gita, and why not a popular novel?
5. Why 2-3 days' planning for temple, and no planning required for other things?
6. Why front row in a theatre, why rear seat in a praying place?
7. Why it's difficult to learn a thing about God, while it's easy to learn and spread gossip?
8. Why belief in Newspaper, magazines, and not believe in holy books?
9. Why wish to have a place in heaven without being ready to invest anything in reserving that seat?
10. Why forward jokes and stuff, and not messages about God?
Just tried to rephrase the questions to make them sound less like they are trying to make me feel guilty about those facts even before I start analysing them. Now they are in a more valid neutral state. Then, on second thought:
1. Easier to feel that I am doing shopping for myself and my loved ones. Is that strange?
2. Easier to feel that I am enjoying myself in a movie than in a place of worship. Is that strange?
3. Easier to feel that we know our friend. He is right there in front of me. Faulty, mortal, but visible going by my simple perceptions. Is it strange to believe and feel more comfortable with a friend, than a God?
4. Easier to feel that I am enjoying myself reading a novel than reading Bible/Quran/Gita. Is that strange?
5. Easier to feel that I am going to use my time elsewhere for myself, and time in the worship place for nothing. Is that strange?
6. Easier to feel that in theatre we are enjoying ourselves. In a worship place we have gone for some other reason. We feel more enthusiastic about something which is giving us fun. Well, is that strange?
7. It's fun gossiping. The fun thing about them is they don't say we should learn them. We can as well ignore. A biteful of gossip goes well, with a sip of coffee! Is that strange?
8. It's easier to believe people who use the vocabulary and context that we understand. Usually it's easier to respect people who use words, languages, and concepts we don't understand. But very difficult to believe them. Is that strange?
9. I would like to spend a week or two alone in a lonely beach with Sonali Bendre (or Aishwarya Rai, or Pamela Anderson, or Carmen Electra, or Alicia Silverstone or any of those hot ones...). What! You want me to invest something for that? Forget it! I don't even know if such a scheme exists. Is that strange?
10. Easier to feel that we are spreading smiles by sending jokes. Is that strange?
I think it's more natural to feel inclined to do things we directly associate ourselves with, regardless of whether they are right or wrong, good or bad. Associating oneself with God is often not easy for many. I think that can happen only in the ways mentioned below:
1. You have grown in a religious environment, and faith has come to you as a natural thing. This includes two kinds:
1. a) Naturally religious environment. Other options are nearly absent. Faith comes like a daily habit: e.g. brushing your teeth, taking bath etc. One never finds a necessity to question these habits and faith.
1. b) Even if other options are visible, there is some kind of grading system visible, wherein it is deemed easier to be in good books of parents and elders by doing pooja daily.
2. You come across an earth-shattering experience which completely shakes your beliefs.
3. Logical experience, which define the directives of life based on 'correct and incorrect things,' rather than on 'good and bad.' Providing logically consistent and comprehensible models of the world, which serve purposes we consider of practical utility. Argument systems which suggest questioning the simple, natural maxim of 'It's my life, and I will do what increases it's value for me', will not fair well, when it comes to changing people's belief. Take the example of classical music. Its beauty gets visible only through training, or culturing from childhood. The other way to appreciate it is the way street-singers do: 'By realising, grain by grain, the beauty in it that is absent in what we do. We realise that when we want to characterise and codify our concept of musical beauty, it will give birth to some system of classical music. Meanwhile, who are not interested in music should be left alone. We should wait for the day when when he feels a song sing out when he hears a cuckoo sing, a church-bell ring, or a violin give words to the wordless feelings in his heart. He himself will come back to you that day and ask: 'Hey, I know you know how cuckoo sings. Let me hear that sound again, again again...'
Faith should be born out of simple spiritual experiences, which gives us techniques of generating joy, from within ourselves, for experiencing which we are otherwise dependent on the environment. Faith will naturally arise when the source of that joy is within sight through sustained investigation and practice.
Exactly the reverse of faith may also happen due to the same set of reasons. For instance:
Sometimes it's considered cool and impressive to be disbeliever. So people turn disbelievers to impress others.
Faith can't come when we can't associate with it. Yes, sitting in the temple will never win against watching a movie. Unless, the concept of 'amusement' is redefined. Nobody can start loving sitting and doing pooja just because doing pooja is considered good. It is on the people who have benefitted from doing pooja to communicate to others how it has benefitted them (of course, if the care that the rest of their brethen reap the fruits of faith too; because unless they care, are they believers?) It can be done by proving that indeed having fun is strange and getting bored is not. That can't be done, I am sure. So the other thing to prove is : 'There's some kind of enjoyment in those seemingly boring acts. It needs a bit of training and patience in the beginning, like most good things of the world. But there's great fun in having faith.'
If somebody convinces me that being a believer is great fun, I will consider it. Otherwise, it will be very strange for to do Acts of Faith, even if they are good.
Star Wars and Spirituality
(Imported from my old weblog 29.5.2005)
Sujit: Saw Starwars yesterday. Was bowled over by it. I had liked the First (fourth) part, 'The Phantom Menace'. I couldn't appreciate the next one 'Attack of the Clones.' But this one I like even better than the first. Great special effects, great dialogues, and most importantly, great spicing up with spiritual fundae!
Sujit: Yesterday was a hectic day for me. Had made some junk research presentations for effectively 5 hours: first at Philips, and then at Rational. Night, I had been to a boring wedding party, and then the movie. I had decided that I would just drop dead on my bed after finishing the movie. But its concepts moved me into having an animated discussion with my friend here for two hours after coming back, till 3 am. No wonder my day started at 3 pm today.
Sumantro: Couldnt stop myself... today we went and saw the movie . But to be frank, other than the graphics, the story was quite insipid . The dialog-delivery was monotonous, and the acting, quite stiff. But I liked the emperor's acting, so what does that say about me?!
Sujit: hmm. I too don't rate the acting very high. Graphics was very good indeed. But as I said, the allusions to spiritual stuff kindled thoughts. Perhaps, you don't give all that much to such things. For me, the idea of the dark side, harnessing its power, its decaying effect...all these have special meaning. The discussion that I wrote about in the previous scrap was in
fact about that. I will try to blog them down and send you the link.
Sumantro: I do give the philosophical stuff a lot of thought. But, the Star Wars philosophy is very basic (good vs. evil, son redeeming dad's wrongdoings, some prophecies gone wrong)... I really liked the ideas in the Matrix Trilogy much much better .
Sujit: Uhm! I thought there were other things apart from those things. For instance,
the discussion about the basic difference between a Jedi and a Sif. The
discussion mayn't have been very cleverly done. But what it alluded to is
very profound I feel. The fundamental difference between a good and bad
person doesn't as much lie in what they do, but in the source from which
they derive their vital energies. Is it love, joy, beauty; or is fear, anger,
jealousy, and hatred. Of course, whether someone rates them as really wise
stuff, or just cliches picked up from scriptures is a personal matter. I
thought, they have blended it cleverly with sci-fi. Yes, the Matrix concept
was also good. But I felt, it failed to hold on to the gravity of the
subject through all the episodes. I felt that the first one was the best one,
and more or less contained all the conceptual novelties that trilogy had to
offer. The other two looked more like the producers attempt to break even.
[;)]
That's not a scap; it's a blog! [;)]
Sujit: Saw Starwars yesterday. Was bowled over by it. I had liked the First (fourth) part, 'The Phantom Menace'. I couldn't appreciate the next one 'Attack of the Clones.' But this one I like even better than the first. Great special effects, great dialogues, and most importantly, great spicing up with spiritual fundae!
Sujit: Yesterday was a hectic day for me. Had made some junk research presentations for effectively 5 hours: first at Philips, and then at Rational. Night, I had been to a boring wedding party, and then the movie. I had decided that I would just drop dead on my bed after finishing the movie. But its concepts moved me into having an animated discussion with my friend here for two hours after coming back, till 3 am. No wonder my day started at 3 pm today.
Sumantro: Couldnt stop myself... today we went and saw the movie . But to be frank, other than the graphics, the story was quite insipid . The dialog-delivery was monotonous, and the acting, quite stiff. But I liked the emperor's acting, so what does that say about me?!
Sujit: hmm. I too don't rate the acting very high. Graphics was very good indeed. But as I said, the allusions to spiritual stuff kindled thoughts. Perhaps, you don't give all that much to such things. For me, the idea of the dark side, harnessing its power, its decaying effect...all these have special meaning. The discussion that I wrote about in the previous scrap was in
fact about that. I will try to blog them down and send you the link.
Sumantro: I do give the philosophical stuff a lot of thought. But, the Star Wars philosophy is very basic (good vs. evil, son redeeming dad's wrongdoings, some prophecies gone wrong)... I really liked the ideas in the Matrix Trilogy much much better .
Sujit: Uhm! I thought there were other things apart from those things. For instance,
the discussion about the basic difference between a Jedi and a Sif. The
discussion mayn't have been very cleverly done. But what it alluded to is
very profound I feel. The fundamental difference between a good and bad
person doesn't as much lie in what they do, but in the source from which
they derive their vital energies. Is it love, joy, beauty; or is fear, anger,
jealousy, and hatred. Of course, whether someone rates them as really wise
stuff, or just cliches picked up from scriptures is a personal matter. I
thought, they have blended it cleverly with sci-fi. Yes, the Matrix concept
was also good. But I felt, it failed to hold on to the gravity of the
subject through all the episodes. I felt that the first one was the best one,
and more or less contained all the conceptual novelties that trilogy had to
offer. The other two looked more like the producers attempt to break even.
[;)]
That's not a scap; it's a blog! [;)]
Researchers and Businessmen
(Imported from my old weblogs)
On a serious note, I think that's true and makes sense too.
I would like to remind ourselves of how the Hindu society was built around the four castes. As per that Brahmins (researchers) constituted the highest castes. Vaishya (businessman, trader) were placed on the third rung. >From time immemorial, Brahmins were supposed to live a life of a pauper. And it has been the occupation of the vaishya to become rich by doing trade. While the brahmin taught and researched, he served to connect the society to its higher existence and future, by defining knowledge. Traders, on the other hand, provided for the immediate physical needs of the society. They have been the backbone of the society. By this very definition, a Brahmin is supposed to renounce physical comforts -- as a matter of a proof, if not anything else, of his connection to the higher world to which his brethen were obliged to connect the rest of the human society. Brahmins defined the course of history, but they never were the heros. Brahmins are supposed to be the kingmakers, never the kings.
I believe, researchers are modern day brahmins. Knowledge is their sole goal. And they are out there to reinforce the faith of the human race on the possibility of having a future based on knowledge and higher ideals. Of course, ideally speaking. Till that future is still under construction, the present has to be preserved through other means of resource generation. Businessmen do it for us.
Therefore it's fair that businessman are given the liberty to be richer than researchers. Researchers are (supposed to be) creatures with an eye to look beyond what current physical means of living well can give. They are dreamers of a better future for everybody. If they want others to believe on their dreams, they have pursue it, possibly renouncing the present comforts.
In the present day, I believe, we are all part researchers, part businessmen; part brahmins, part traders. The boundaries between roles have gone fuzzy. But the relational equation remains unviolated: Vaishyas still earn more than brahmins. That's fair!
Related Blogs:
Art and Science
Researchers and Filmmakers
Researchers - Germs of An Evolved Species
Man - Is He Temporary or Permanent
On a serious note, I think that's true and makes sense too.
I would like to remind ourselves of how the Hindu society was built around the four castes. As per that Brahmins (researchers) constituted the highest castes. Vaishya (businessman, trader) were placed on the third rung. >From time immemorial, Brahmins were supposed to live a life of a pauper. And it has been the occupation of the vaishya to become rich by doing trade. While the brahmin taught and researched, he served to connect the society to its higher existence and future, by defining knowledge. Traders, on the other hand, provided for the immediate physical needs of the society. They have been the backbone of the society. By this very definition, a Brahmin is supposed to renounce physical comforts -- as a matter of a proof, if not anything else, of his connection to the higher world to which his brethen were obliged to connect the rest of the human society. Brahmins defined the course of history, but they never were the heros. Brahmins are supposed to be the kingmakers, never the kings.
I believe, researchers are modern day brahmins. Knowledge is their sole goal. And they are out there to reinforce the faith of the human race on the possibility of having a future based on knowledge and higher ideals. Of course, ideally speaking. Till that future is still under construction, the present has to be preserved through other means of resource generation. Businessmen do it for us.
Therefore it's fair that businessman are given the liberty to be richer than researchers. Researchers are (supposed to be) creatures with an eye to look beyond what current physical means of living well can give. They are dreamers of a better future for everybody. If they want others to believe on their dreams, they have pursue it, possibly renouncing the present comforts.
In the present day, I believe, we are all part researchers, part businessmen; part brahmins, part traders. The boundaries between roles have gone fuzzy. But the relational equation remains unviolated: Vaishyas still earn more than brahmins. That's fair!
Related Blogs:
Art and Science
Researchers and Filmmakers
Researchers - Germs of An Evolved Species
Man - Is He Temporary or Permanent
Active and Passive Passion
(Imported from my old blog May 31, 2005)
Perhaps, I have just stumbled into the reason of my recent decline in reading habits. I am finally finding it substantially easier now to read research papers. It's rather sudden. I feel it's since I actually started considering writing papers my own business, and got started with writing one myself.
My impression about creative writing has been for sometime that it is a very pleasurable but energy consuming activity. Keeping away from it would save me that much energy. However, I have been suffering a steady decline in my reading habits off late. Reading gives me a strong urge to write too. Therefore, keeping away from reading would help me keep away from writing too. That was the idea.
However, it's suddenly appearing as though, there's a reverse flow too. While I consider creating literature as my business, I would have to urge to enjoy literature created by others too. I think it applies to most of the other aspects of my personality too. If I enjoy a form of activity, I would enjoy it from both sides of it. As a doer as much as an audience. Enjoying something just as an audience seems like impossible for me, unless it's something as high budget and vulgar as a movie.
My reading habit hasn't gone down by itself. My involvement in writing creative stuff has gone down. And that has caused the downslide.
Hmm! Now, what do I have to infer further from it?
Perhaps, I have just stumbled into the reason of my recent decline in reading habits. I am finally finding it substantially easier now to read research papers. It's rather sudden. I feel it's since I actually started considering writing papers my own business, and got started with writing one myself.
My impression about creative writing has been for sometime that it is a very pleasurable but energy consuming activity. Keeping away from it would save me that much energy. However, I have been suffering a steady decline in my reading habits off late. Reading gives me a strong urge to write too. Therefore, keeping away from reading would help me keep away from writing too. That was the idea.
However, it's suddenly appearing as though, there's a reverse flow too. While I consider creating literature as my business, I would have to urge to enjoy literature created by others too. I think it applies to most of the other aspects of my personality too. If I enjoy a form of activity, I would enjoy it from both sides of it. As a doer as much as an audience. Enjoying something just as an audience seems like impossible for me, unless it's something as high budget and vulgar as a movie.
My reading habit hasn't gone down by itself. My involvement in writing creative stuff has gone down. And that has caused the downslide.
Hmm! Now, what do I have to infer further from it?
Monday, March 13, 2006
Nrityagram Visit on September 1, 2002
(Imported from my old weblog, January 26, 2004)
WARNING: A longish mail follows. If you're busy save it for later perusal.
Today, four of us, along with others had been to Nrityagram. Initially, I
was rather doubtful about the justifiability of this trip in the face of
the overall progress report of the team, which seems a little below the
safety mark. Perhaps, being around with everybody would have been good.
But now I feel that I have something better to share with you. A
few words about the experience that we had there, and a mental picture
that we have
carried back from there. It's a beautiful picture. Like a rangoli drawn on
water. Some of you may have found me and Prodyut slightly pensive, laid
back, serious, depressed etc. this evening. Perhaps, it's the tiredness of
the day. But
more than that, it was that beautiful picture drawn on water which we were
gazing at, were trying to preserve, until gloating over it registered it
permanently to the memory. And registered, it had got; for never will we
forget this day.
I won't describe the physical beauty of the place, since there's
no dearth of it in our current surroundings. I will try to relate a few
bits of what I can remember out of our conversation there with the
artists, immediately after the rehearsals and during the lunch.
We all are artists:
-------------------
We all are artists in many ways. The apparent is obvious. We all
sing, dance, play instruments. But we are artists in a not-so-obvious way.
We all are artists because we love what we do. The realisation, if it
wasn't there in any of us, comes from one of the artists there.
When we sat there listening to her, feeling humbled after having
seen her so closely while she rehearsed, she told this, 'I feel you work
far more harder than we do. For me, it's unimaginable. You too are artists
in my view.' Perhaps she told it sincerely. Or perhaps, she didn't find so
much satisfaction in some of us, and wanted to make us feel good about
our occupation! But I felt the truth in it deep down in my heart.
The relation between the artist and the audience:
-------------------------------------------------
One more revelation was about the expectations from a good
audience. She said, 'When I dance in front of an audience, I make myself
very vulnerable to them. They can kill me if they want.' She revealed
about one of the bad experiences she had in IISc. 'I felt like a
prostitute after the performance.' The audience matters so much to the
artist, and like this. A lady who appeared like a goddess to her present
audience, had been degraded to feeling like a fallen woman!
What is it that she expects from the audience. I thought about
when you share something close to your heart to somebody. You expose
yourself (like I am perhaps doing now). Something you value, something you
tenderly love : the sight of a pink flower among lush green foliage, a
jingle of a far-off bell, a beloved person, an experience. When you share
it with somebody, your expectation is to see a part of that love growing
in the
listener. When two person's object of love is the same, they also love
each other. That's how the relation is built. That's how love grows.
But at that moment it's very easy for your listener to hurt you.
He or she can just profane your emotions. And you see your love being
hurt. The seed of love that you'd planted, the seed which you wanted to
see growing into a tree, gets trampled cruelly. You see your love, the
offspring of your emotions, getting cruelly murdered. And there is nothing
more painful than that. That's exactly in contrast to what you do it for.
When your performance plants the seed of your love in some other heart,
you see your love growing in another self. You see yourself growing.
Their's nothing more euphoric than that. Perhaps that's what she named
'Spiritual orgasm!' :)
For her, her dance is the perfect way of expressing herself. And
in expressing oneself, lies the greatest pleasure of life, and the biggest
danger too. 'For me dancing is how I reach out to my higher self.' And
that's how
she wants it to be for her audience too. As the dancer or as an audience,
one can experience the same : The rising of the self. Half of this
success
lies with the audience. They can as well look at it as a mere performance
of an artist, or may be something really vulgar. Or they can honour it by
making a way of spiritual upliftment for themselves as well as for the
performer.
Sucess
------
They are involved in conducting weekend dance courses for children from
the surrounding villages. On being asked how many of them would really end
up becoming dancers, one of them said that very few, in fact. Then she
said a beautiful thing: 'They are all living hard lives. They are afraid.
Inconfident. They have learnt to bear pain silently. If their father comes
back home everyday heavily drunk, she has learnt not even to cry of fear
and disgust. If at the end of a year, she discovers so much of the
pleasure of expressing oneself that she can actually cry out when she
feels pain on seeing her drunken father beating her mother, we will
consider it a great success!'
Expressing oneself creates confidence, to say the least. It's in
fact the only way to be happy, to be successful, to be in love. Only when
our outer activities get synchronised with our inner world, the above
magical things -- confidence, love, success, happiness -- become simple
facts, realities of life. For them, dance expresses their inner self.
For us...? It could be anything. Singing, dancing, playing,
drawing, writing, or researching.
********************************************
My black and white writing can't reproduce all the effects of the
colourful picture I have carried back. But I hope many of us would get
curious (and not put-off!) about the colours of that simple ensemble, the
colours that I can't show myself with any amount of poetry of words. You
must go there and see it for yourself.
I will find it a great success if this mail, which I have typed
while my eyes are laden with tiredness and sleepiness, makes some of you
really find it a worthwhile effort to visit Nrityagram in the near future.
Love,
Sujit
WARNING: A longish mail follows. If you're busy save it for later perusal.
Today, four of us, along with others had been to Nrityagram. Initially, I
was rather doubtful about the justifiability of this trip in the face of
the overall progress report of the team, which seems a little below the
safety mark. Perhaps, being around with everybody would have been good.
But now I feel that I have something better to share with you. A
few words about the experience that we had there, and a mental picture
that we have
carried back from there. It's a beautiful picture. Like a rangoli drawn on
water. Some of you may have found me and Prodyut slightly pensive, laid
back, serious, depressed etc. this evening. Perhaps, it's the tiredness of
the day. But
more than that, it was that beautiful picture drawn on water which we were
gazing at, were trying to preserve, until gloating over it registered it
permanently to the memory. And registered, it had got; for never will we
forget this day.
I won't describe the physical beauty of the place, since there's
no dearth of it in our current surroundings. I will try to relate a few
bits of what I can remember out of our conversation there with the
artists, immediately after the rehearsals and during the lunch.
We all are artists:
-------------------
We all are artists in many ways. The apparent is obvious. We all
sing, dance, play instruments. But we are artists in a not-so-obvious way.
We all are artists because we love what we do. The realisation, if it
wasn't there in any of us, comes from one of the artists there.
When we sat there listening to her, feeling humbled after having
seen her so closely while she rehearsed, she told this, 'I feel you work
far more harder than we do. For me, it's unimaginable. You too are artists
in my view.' Perhaps she told it sincerely. Or perhaps, she didn't find so
much satisfaction in some of us, and wanted to make us feel good about
our occupation! But I felt the truth in it deep down in my heart.
The relation between the artist and the audience:
-------------------------------------------------
One more revelation was about the expectations from a good
audience. She said, 'When I dance in front of an audience, I make myself
very vulnerable to them. They can kill me if they want.' She revealed
about one of the bad experiences she had in IISc. 'I felt like a
prostitute after the performance.' The audience matters so much to the
artist, and like this. A lady who appeared like a goddess to her present
audience, had been degraded to feeling like a fallen woman!
What is it that she expects from the audience. I thought about
when you share something close to your heart to somebody. You expose
yourself (like I am perhaps doing now). Something you value, something you
tenderly love : the sight of a pink flower among lush green foliage, a
jingle of a far-off bell, a beloved person, an experience. When you share
it with somebody, your expectation is to see a part of that love growing
in the
listener. When two person's object of love is the same, they also love
each other. That's how the relation is built. That's how love grows.
But at that moment it's very easy for your listener to hurt you.
He or she can just profane your emotions. And you see your love being
hurt. The seed of love that you'd planted, the seed which you wanted to
see growing into a tree, gets trampled cruelly. You see your love, the
offspring of your emotions, getting cruelly murdered. And there is nothing
more painful than that. That's exactly in contrast to what you do it for.
When your performance plants the seed of your love in some other heart,
you see your love growing in another self. You see yourself growing.
Their's nothing more euphoric than that. Perhaps that's what she named
'Spiritual orgasm!' :)
For her, her dance is the perfect way of expressing herself. And
in expressing oneself, lies the greatest pleasure of life, and the biggest
danger too. 'For me dancing is how I reach out to my higher self.' And
that's how
she wants it to be for her audience too. As the dancer or as an audience,
one can experience the same : The rising of the self. Half of this
success
lies with the audience. They can as well look at it as a mere performance
of an artist, or may be something really vulgar. Or they can honour it by
making a way of spiritual upliftment for themselves as well as for the
performer.
Sucess
------
They are involved in conducting weekend dance courses for children from
the surrounding villages. On being asked how many of them would really end
up becoming dancers, one of them said that very few, in fact. Then she
said a beautiful thing: 'They are all living hard lives. They are afraid.
Inconfident. They have learnt to bear pain silently. If their father comes
back home everyday heavily drunk, she has learnt not even to cry of fear
and disgust. If at the end of a year, she discovers so much of the
pleasure of expressing oneself that she can actually cry out when she
feels pain on seeing her drunken father beating her mother, we will
consider it a great success!'
Expressing oneself creates confidence, to say the least. It's in
fact the only way to be happy, to be successful, to be in love. Only when
our outer activities get synchronised with our inner world, the above
magical things -- confidence, love, success, happiness -- become simple
facts, realities of life. For them, dance expresses their inner self.
For us...? It could be anything. Singing, dancing, playing,
drawing, writing, or researching.
********************************************
My black and white writing can't reproduce all the effects of the
colourful picture I have carried back. But I hope many of us would get
curious (and not put-off!) about the colours of that simple ensemble, the
colours that I can't show myself with any amount of poetry of words. You
must go there and see it for yourself.
I will find it a great success if this mail, which I have typed
while my eyes are laden with tiredness and sleepiness, makes some of you
really find it a worthwhile effort to visit Nrityagram in the near future.
Love,
Sujit
Narrative Script for Maria's Dance Programme on September 7, 2002
(Imported from my old weblog January 26, 2004)
'What was God's first creation?' The question has stayed with man from the very
day of his own creation. Was the universe created out of the sacrifice of the
primordial man 'Purusha'? Or was it the first creation of God as per a well led
plan, on the sixth day of which 'Man' was created? Or was it out of the
explosion of a gigantic mass at very high temperatures some ten thousand
million years ago?
Perhaps these questions are here to stay. Perhaps our quest for the Creator
may never see its end. Perhaps the wisdom lies in observing and marvelling at
grandeur and beauty of this creation called the Nature, the Universe. Perhaps,
we are here to proudly rejoice being tiny parts of this magnificant creation.
To dance in sheer joy, in gratitude for having been created, for having been
made a part of His creation.
We present before you one such attempt to acknowledge the greatness of the
greatest creation. A dance-performance that tries to trace the story of the
creation of the Universe, and life, as has been depicted by our wise ancestors.
In this, God Himself tells this story taking the voice of a human being for
narration; and of human form, gestures and movements to visually depict the
story of the Universe, of Life.
A subtle story of the descent of the five elements, of life. Of God's
infinite joy, which has found expression in His greatest creation : Life.
The Story begins...
I was here, I am here now, I will be here always.
Here. Everywhere.
I am within you; I am around you.
I am your creator; I am you!
I am the infinite. I am Sat-chit-anand. I am Infinite truth. Infinite existence.Infinite Joy.
And from this infinite joy emerged that little spark. The spark that was a speckof brightness that I am. The spark that you named 'Agni' : Fire. You have
rightly made it a tradition to start all your endeavours with the
sacred union of Agni with his wife 'Swaha'. I have sent the very embodiment of
fire to you in the form of SURYA, the Sun, to give a holy start to each day of
your life; and to bless you with my own light.
In the form of Agni, you could see me. Through Vayu you could touch me. Feel
me. And it's Wind and Air through which you have always breathed me. With Air
you have filled yourself up with me.
I am where everything is. I am where nothing is.
Behold my vastness through the vast emptiness of the space : Antariksh.
Space is like me.
It subsumes everything. Yet it never comes in the way of anything. Vast yet
Modest. All-consuming, yet infinitely gentle.
The Final act of the drama of Creation wouldn't be played without a stage as
beautiful, as grand as the theme of my creation. The white shyness of Sun
wouldn't ever unfold the numerous colours in its soul unless it had a canvas
which could capture so many colours. There could be no sounds heard, no
lights seen, no movements touched, no flow of life, and no fresh fragrances of
animation, if there hadn't been EARTH.
Agni took my BRIGHTNESS, space took my VAST EXPANSES.
Earth took from me my most prized possession. My LOVE. My GENEROSITY. No wonder
that over and over again you have emerged from her. Danced to my love tunes
on her bosom. And have gone back to rest in her laps after having played your
part. All wisdom of your learnings stays engraved in her calmness, her warm
serenity. Go, ask her about all that she has silently withheld : Your games of
childhood, you business, your lovemaking, your killing, your end. Ask her what
she knows. And you will know all I have to tell you through her unending
silence. She is your MOTHER. She is your greatest instructor.
Finally, WATER appeared completing the grand assembly of the five elements.
In her flowed the animation of life. She was the satiating draught of life.
She was tearful expression of your emotion. Yes! She was life itself.
See life in the tiny raindrops. See the mischief of life in the streams
trickling down the mountains. And the gravity of life in holy rivers, which
proceed sinuously drawing lines of prosperity on the huge canvas of
Earth. Observe the vast ocean, which withheld the churning out of AMRIT.
The ocean, which is naive on the surface, but which hides the vibrance of life
in the form of innumerable beautiful creatures for whom it is the world.
Water has run through your veins in the form of your life-blood. And it has
manifested my rage through unequalled destruction too.
Then came the great moment. Then came the moment for which these five elements
had been brought together. The moment when I revealed myself in all my glory.
That was the moment when even I felt a moment of pride. That moment I created
my greatest and most beautiful creation.
That moment I created LIFE!
My consciousness took shape in you, my children. Through life you saw my
brightness, my ROOPA. Through life you felt my touch, my SPARSHA. Through life
only, you sensed my taste, my RASA. And through life, could you smell my GANDHA.
And believe me my beloved. Through your life I have lived too.
I have rejoiced when you have laughed.
I have felt being loved when you have loved each other.
I have strained through each drop of honest sweat you have dropped over your
undertakings.
...
...
'What was God's first creation?' The question has stayed with man from the very
day of his own creation. Was the universe created out of the sacrifice of the
primordial man 'Purusha'? Or was it the first creation of God as per a well led
plan, on the sixth day of which 'Man' was created? Or was it out of the
explosion of a gigantic mass at very high temperatures some ten thousand
million years ago?
Perhaps these questions are here to stay. Perhaps our quest for the Creator
may never see its end. Perhaps the wisdom lies in observing and marvelling at
grandeur and beauty of this creation called the Nature, the Universe. Perhaps,
we are here to proudly rejoice being tiny parts of this magnificant creation.
To dance in sheer joy, in gratitude for having been created, for having been
made a part of His creation.
We present before you one such attempt to acknowledge the greatness of the
greatest creation. A dance-performance that tries to trace the story of the
creation of the Universe, and life, as has been depicted by our wise ancestors.
In this, God Himself tells this story taking the voice of a human being for
narration; and of human form, gestures and movements to visually depict the
story of the Universe, of Life.
A subtle story of the descent of the five elements, of life. Of God's
infinite joy, which has found expression in His greatest creation : Life.
The Story begins...
I was here, I am here now, I will be here always.
Here. Everywhere.
I am within you; I am around you.
I am your creator; I am you!
I am the infinite. I am Sat-chit-anand. I am Infinite truth. Infinite existence.Infinite Joy.
And from this infinite joy emerged that little spark. The spark that was a speckof brightness that I am. The spark that you named 'Agni' : Fire. You have
rightly made it a tradition to start all your endeavours with the
sacred union of Agni with his wife 'Swaha'. I have sent the very embodiment of
fire to you in the form of SURYA, the Sun, to give a holy start to each day of
your life; and to bless you with my own light.
In the form of Agni, you could see me. Through Vayu you could touch me. Feel
me. And it's Wind and Air through which you have always breathed me. With Air
you have filled yourself up with me.
I am where everything is. I am where nothing is.
Behold my vastness through the vast emptiness of the space : Antariksh.
Space is like me.
It subsumes everything. Yet it never comes in the way of anything. Vast yet
Modest. All-consuming, yet infinitely gentle.
The Final act of the drama of Creation wouldn't be played without a stage as
beautiful, as grand as the theme of my creation. The white shyness of Sun
wouldn't ever unfold the numerous colours in its soul unless it had a canvas
which could capture so many colours. There could be no sounds heard, no
lights seen, no movements touched, no flow of life, and no fresh fragrances of
animation, if there hadn't been EARTH.
Agni took my BRIGHTNESS, space took my VAST EXPANSES.
Earth took from me my most prized possession. My LOVE. My GENEROSITY. No wonder
that over and over again you have emerged from her. Danced to my love tunes
on her bosom. And have gone back to rest in her laps after having played your
part. All wisdom of your learnings stays engraved in her calmness, her warm
serenity. Go, ask her about all that she has silently withheld : Your games of
childhood, you business, your lovemaking, your killing, your end. Ask her what
she knows. And you will know all I have to tell you through her unending
silence. She is your MOTHER. She is your greatest instructor.
Finally, WATER appeared completing the grand assembly of the five elements.
In her flowed the animation of life. She was the satiating draught of life.
She was tearful expression of your emotion. Yes! She was life itself.
See life in the tiny raindrops. See the mischief of life in the streams
trickling down the mountains. And the gravity of life in holy rivers, which
proceed sinuously drawing lines of prosperity on the huge canvas of
Earth. Observe the vast ocean, which withheld the churning out of AMRIT.
The ocean, which is naive on the surface, but which hides the vibrance of life
in the form of innumerable beautiful creatures for whom it is the world.
Water has run through your veins in the form of your life-blood. And it has
manifested my rage through unequalled destruction too.
Then came the great moment. Then came the moment for which these five elements
had been brought together. The moment when I revealed myself in all my glory.
That was the moment when even I felt a moment of pride. That moment I created
my greatest and most beautiful creation.
That moment I created LIFE!
My consciousness took shape in you, my children. Through life you saw my
brightness, my ROOPA. Through life you felt my touch, my SPARSHA. Through life
only, you sensed my taste, my RASA. And through life, could you smell my GANDHA.
And believe me my beloved. Through your life I have lived too.
I have rejoiced when you have laughed.
I have felt being loved when you have loved each other.
I have strained through each drop of honest sweat you have dropped over your
undertakings.
...
...
More Patriotism
(Imported from my old weblog March 11, 2004)
I too take the cribbing sessions of resident and non-resident Indians a
part of their wish to escape. By cribbing, they are just collecting
excuses to run away and stay away.
The best and the strongest ones will stay back and bring out the real
India from inside it. The best this country can get from outside is
money, consumer good, and some technical knowhow. All that is incapable
of turning the fate of the nation. The thing our country needs most
badly is to realise is that creation is a part of our cultural and
national character. The urge to create should never make you snap your
ties with your motherland.
Oscar Wilde said, 'Patriotism is the virtue of the malicious.' That
holds true when all nations mind their own business. We can't let our
inferiority complex be a fodder for somebody else's vanity. Quite a few
of them depend on our continuing to feel inferior for their continuing
to feel superior. They depend that creation doesn't happen from here.
And if creativity takes birth here, it ultimately finds its way to their
home. Alas, with creativity, this body hosts many a vice. Greed, vanity,
cowardice. These are made use of to pull the creative minds away from
their home. So, that the whole nation keeps thinking that people capable
of doing some worthwhile are rarely born here. And if they are, this
nation can't retain them.
That's not acceptable.
I too take the cribbing sessions of resident and non-resident Indians a
part of their wish to escape. By cribbing, they are just collecting
excuses to run away and stay away.
The best and the strongest ones will stay back and bring out the real
India from inside it. The best this country can get from outside is
money, consumer good, and some technical knowhow. All that is incapable
of turning the fate of the nation. The thing our country needs most
badly is to realise is that creation is a part of our cultural and
national character. The urge to create should never make you snap your
ties with your motherland.
Oscar Wilde said, 'Patriotism is the virtue of the malicious.' That
holds true when all nations mind their own business. We can't let our
inferiority complex be a fodder for somebody else's vanity. Quite a few
of them depend on our continuing to feel inferior for their continuing
to feel superior. They depend that creation doesn't happen from here.
And if creativity takes birth here, it ultimately finds its way to their
home. Alas, with creativity, this body hosts many a vice. Greed, vanity,
cowardice. These are made use of to pull the creative minds away from
their home. So, that the whole nation keeps thinking that people capable
of doing some worthwhile are rarely born here. And if they are, this
nation can't retain them.
That's not acceptable.
Rightists and Centrists
(Imported from my old weblog January 8, 2005)
Hm.
Everything you said is true. Nothing to dispute.
There's one doubt although. I understand that Kashmir is closer home than Iraq. But are we really aware of the complete reality either in Iraq or Kashmir? We come to know of these things through several hierarchies of media, and textbooks. No doubt that these informations are twisted and turned depending upon all the agents through whom they flow down to us.
Similarly there are radical people who try to break this hierarchy terming it vain, politically motivated and dishonest. These people, however well-meaning, have their own biases. Facts are pawns of judgement. One can suppress and blow up facts according to what he wants the listener to believe. One really doesn't need to lie in order to misguide.
We realise how biased grooming can change one's philosophy, life, everything. Some glaring examples are Jihaadis, who die shameful deaths thinking that they're dying for a noble cause. I am sure the pride and sense of sacrifice that those jihadis have in their heart is no different from what Bhagat Singh and Azad had in theirs. You'll heatedly dispute saying the Bhagat Singh and Azad never raised even a finger on a innocent soul, while jihadis butcher innocent people. Very true! But there're two aspects. One, the legends about the glorious freedom fighters could be taken with a pinch or salt. Two, jihadis just need an extra amount of brainwashing to start believing that lives of innocent people are lost just as a sacrifice for serving a noble cause! India is a free country now. People who died fighting for her independence are glorified as freedom-fighters. Jihadis are dying with some similar hope in their hearts. How unfortunate! Another example is our National inferiority complex, about which we two had had a discussion earlier too. We all have been cultured for three centuries now that westernisation is the way to progress. So deeply ingrained has this thing become now that it shows in almost every aspect of our life: the language we speak, the dresses we wear, the philosophies, socialisation, celebration, and even working. Even as I lament its presence, I can't guess all the various number of ways in which I myself may be a victim of this complex!
In short, all I mean to say is that I am filled with scepticism, almost to the point of cynicism, about how much ear I should lend to any voice that raises itself above others to make itself heard. I am now almost numb towards anything that uses ways of clouding the logical thoughts. Such things include, but are not limited to: Loud explosions, heated speeches, religious sentiments, and our biases towards or against our own pedigree.
I am equipped with insufficient information about Max-Muller and Aryan invasion stuff. I also have an inkling of the antithesis of it. I don't believe either. I understand that Aryan invasion theory does have a chance of being just a theory propounded by imperialist forces to make a subtle and deep attack on our racial confidence. But that's just a chance, a possibility. I would, given the time and inclination, like to know much more before leaning either way. Unless, I do history as my profession, or plan to use historical facts to have tremendous effect on my (my people's) future, I am not ready to get sold to either of these theories. They are nice stories for me, each of which is as much a fiction for me as a fact.
I feel that trying to find out more about major world facts which have taken a shape of folklores is a noble act. It's in fact the only noble act that can be done regarding them. Anything else done in this matter is just an addition to the chaos that is already overwhelming the scene. I don't find it worthwhile to argue with, fight with or be sarcastic to people who, just like me, are blinded by propaganda; and unfortunately have fallen into the opposite camp. I think the only vaible thing to do is to join hands with your opposite camp and dig out facts. The next best thing to do, in case one doesn't have the energy to research into deep facts (as in my case) is to keep quiet accepting the ignorance. We should realise that after all matters of past are important only in an academic way. If there's an academic motive behind talking about them, it's great! If I attach my sentimental vanity to any of enquiries, I think that's useless, even vile.
Therefore, I don't want to vehemently argue either for or against Aryan Invasion theory. I have a feeling that if I do argue against it, I am trying to borrow a concession from others to think of me as a superior race. If I am good, the only way to prove that is through my acts. I don't prove anything by bullshitting about my genes, and that too by arguing on the basis of historical hypotheses, both sides of which are ridden with biases and sentiments. I feel it's as vain to do that as it would be to fight for or against caste system. Do the brahmins indeed have an intellectual edge? May be they had 2000 years ago. May be they hadn't. How does it matter? Now, each man has to speak for himself. So why raise the issue at all?
On the other hand if I argue for the Invasion theory, I am doing nothing significant. We all know that there's a strong chance of its being a manipulated theory. Its critical examination is the only thing to do. Or completely ignoring. There's no good reason to support argument for it (I am yet to meet an Indian who'd do that just for the sake of it).
There's a single point I want to make Aasees bhaiyya! I feel deprived and unfortunate for being ignorant about certain matters. I accept my ignorance. And I look with awe and respect at people who have devoted their time and scholarly energies into factual investigation into many controversial matters. They're real scholars, and deserve being listened to. On the other hand, I have no respect for people who develop undue sentiments on the basis of information which is barely mature. We should join hands to investigate. If not that, we should keep quiet and let the real scholars do the good work. It's shameful for us to turn a beautiful scene of scholarly investigation into a battlefield ridden with noise, dust, mire and blood by fighting over the interpretations of incomplete investigations.
I feel you're one of the good people with strong thoughts and emotions. Could you add a bit of composure to it? Give a chance to age-old methods of investigation, arguments and discussions, instead of being sarcastic and loud (and then having to cover it up by being defensive to those for whom the sarcasm is not meant). Is it possible to put effort into proving the sheer absurdity of building camps on socialogical matters about which even the best of the best can't claim to have definite knowledge? Can't we try to make all these groups work together to find the actual truth? But the first step towards that would be to stop being sarcastic about somebody's camping with the wrong people (as per our viewpoint). It's not the people who're wrong. It's the very process of camping (even if I am with the right camp).
Perhaps, Gopalkrishna Gokhale and BalGangadhar Tilak would have had many similar discussions like this in the 1890's too. :) :) I know that finally it was Tilak who must have been the winner. But, I would still consider lending an ear to Gokhale! :)
Only Rajesh Khanna and Devanand could be the hearthrob of the whole nation by looking handsome by tilting their head 'right' and 'left.' For the all the rest of us, I think, the first condition to look good is to hold the head straight up, right between both the shoulders, and occasionally bowing forward with respect towards everything that's truly good! :)
Hm.
Everything you said is true. Nothing to dispute.
There's one doubt although. I understand that Kashmir is closer home than Iraq. But are we really aware of the complete reality either in Iraq or Kashmir? We come to know of these things through several hierarchies of media, and textbooks. No doubt that these informations are twisted and turned depending upon all the agents through whom they flow down to us.
Similarly there are radical people who try to break this hierarchy terming it vain, politically motivated and dishonest. These people, however well-meaning, have their own biases. Facts are pawns of judgement. One can suppress and blow up facts according to what he wants the listener to believe. One really doesn't need to lie in order to misguide.
We realise how biased grooming can change one's philosophy, life, everything. Some glaring examples are Jihaadis, who die shameful deaths thinking that they're dying for a noble cause. I am sure the pride and sense of sacrifice that those jihadis have in their heart is no different from what Bhagat Singh and Azad had in theirs. You'll heatedly dispute saying the Bhagat Singh and Azad never raised even a finger on a innocent soul, while jihadis butcher innocent people. Very true! But there're two aspects. One, the legends about the glorious freedom fighters could be taken with a pinch or salt. Two, jihadis just need an extra amount of brainwashing to start believing that lives of innocent people are lost just as a sacrifice for serving a noble cause! India is a free country now. People who died fighting for her independence are glorified as freedom-fighters. Jihadis are dying with some similar hope in their hearts. How unfortunate! Another example is our National inferiority complex, about which we two had had a discussion earlier too. We all have been cultured for three centuries now that westernisation is the way to progress. So deeply ingrained has this thing become now that it shows in almost every aspect of our life: the language we speak, the dresses we wear, the philosophies, socialisation, celebration, and even working. Even as I lament its presence, I can't guess all the various number of ways in which I myself may be a victim of this complex!
In short, all I mean to say is that I am filled with scepticism, almost to the point of cynicism, about how much ear I should lend to any voice that raises itself above others to make itself heard. I am now almost numb towards anything that uses ways of clouding the logical thoughts. Such things include, but are not limited to: Loud explosions, heated speeches, religious sentiments, and our biases towards or against our own pedigree.
I am equipped with insufficient information about Max-Muller and Aryan invasion stuff. I also have an inkling of the antithesis of it. I don't believe either. I understand that Aryan invasion theory does have a chance of being just a theory propounded by imperialist forces to make a subtle and deep attack on our racial confidence. But that's just a chance, a possibility. I would, given the time and inclination, like to know much more before leaning either way. Unless, I do history as my profession, or plan to use historical facts to have tremendous effect on my (my people's) future, I am not ready to get sold to either of these theories. They are nice stories for me, each of which is as much a fiction for me as a fact.
I feel that trying to find out more about major world facts which have taken a shape of folklores is a noble act. It's in fact the only noble act that can be done regarding them. Anything else done in this matter is just an addition to the chaos that is already overwhelming the scene. I don't find it worthwhile to argue with, fight with or be sarcastic to people who, just like me, are blinded by propaganda; and unfortunately have fallen into the opposite camp. I think the only vaible thing to do is to join hands with your opposite camp and dig out facts. The next best thing to do, in case one doesn't have the energy to research into deep facts (as in my case) is to keep quiet accepting the ignorance. We should realise that after all matters of past are important only in an academic way. If there's an academic motive behind talking about them, it's great! If I attach my sentimental vanity to any of enquiries, I think that's useless, even vile.
Therefore, I don't want to vehemently argue either for or against Aryan Invasion theory. I have a feeling that if I do argue against it, I am trying to borrow a concession from others to think of me as a superior race. If I am good, the only way to prove that is through my acts. I don't prove anything by bullshitting about my genes, and that too by arguing on the basis of historical hypotheses, both sides of which are ridden with biases and sentiments. I feel it's as vain to do that as it would be to fight for or against caste system. Do the brahmins indeed have an intellectual edge? May be they had 2000 years ago. May be they hadn't. How does it matter? Now, each man has to speak for himself. So why raise the issue at all?
On the other hand if I argue for the Invasion theory, I am doing nothing significant. We all know that there's a strong chance of its being a manipulated theory. Its critical examination is the only thing to do. Or completely ignoring. There's no good reason to support argument for it (I am yet to meet an Indian who'd do that just for the sake of it).
There's a single point I want to make Aasees bhaiyya! I feel deprived and unfortunate for being ignorant about certain matters. I accept my ignorance. And I look with awe and respect at people who have devoted their time and scholarly energies into factual investigation into many controversial matters. They're real scholars, and deserve being listened to. On the other hand, I have no respect for people who develop undue sentiments on the basis of information which is barely mature. We should join hands to investigate. If not that, we should keep quiet and let the real scholars do the good work. It's shameful for us to turn a beautiful scene of scholarly investigation into a battlefield ridden with noise, dust, mire and blood by fighting over the interpretations of incomplete investigations.
I feel you're one of the good people with strong thoughts and emotions. Could you add a bit of composure to it? Give a chance to age-old methods of investigation, arguments and discussions, instead of being sarcastic and loud (and then having to cover it up by being defensive to those for whom the sarcasm is not meant). Is it possible to put effort into proving the sheer absurdity of building camps on socialogical matters about which even the best of the best can't claim to have definite knowledge? Can't we try to make all these groups work together to find the actual truth? But the first step towards that would be to stop being sarcastic about somebody's camping with the wrong people (as per our viewpoint). It's not the people who're wrong. It's the very process of camping (even if I am with the right camp).
Perhaps, Gopalkrishna Gokhale and BalGangadhar Tilak would have had many similar discussions like this in the 1890's too. :) :) I know that finally it was Tilak who must have been the winner. But, I would still consider lending an ear to Gokhale! :)
Only Rajesh Khanna and Devanand could be the hearthrob of the whole nation by looking handsome by tilting their head 'right' and 'left.' For the all the rest of us, I think, the first condition to look good is to hold the head straight up, right between both the shoulders, and occasionally bowing forward with respect towards everything that's truly good! :)
Friday, March 10, 2006
Staring -- Uhm! Bad Manners!
I am prompted to write this blog by Pritesh's thought provoking Women's Day blog.
Hope I am able to keep it in a lighter vein.
One of milder form of sexual harrassment is 'staring.' Well, I have felt harrassed when I got a glare from a teacher, or my father, or somebody like that. I have never experienced the 'sexual' part of it.
I wonder if I have ever subjected anybody to such a harrassment! Hm!
Let me see if I have stared at anybody at all. Well. I think I have. A beautiful girl. Or an attractive figure. Perhaps complimented with a revealing dress. Oh yes! I have looked hard. Have I ogled? I don't know!!
Well, it's exciting to watch an attractive girl. No! no strings attached. I would rather have her never know that anybody's watching. Let her go her way. Let me enjoy the good sight. I mean, when I am watching the moon and its beauty, I really don't want it to get conscious of it and stop going its way! :)
OK! What happens if the girls comes to know of it. I don't know. I don't take the risk of figuring out. There are two reason: One, I don't dare; two, I don't care. There are three possible reactions.
One, positive. Well. I really don't know how to handle that. I really don't know the mannerisms of stealing glances at somebody who's doing the same thing with you from across several tables in the cafeteria. Give her a smile? A wink? Act a bit smarter than you are? Gosh! I can't do all those silly things! It's complicated! And how do you know that it's positive? Suppose you misinterpret...then you are sexually harrassing someone without your knowledge!
Two, neutral. Good! No problems as long as it stays that way. I promise to stare only within decent limits...as I said...something like staring at the moon or stars. No strings attached!
Three, negative. Good God! I have never ogled. I have never got back that dirty look either. I don't know if I get back that look. Most probably if I get back that look, it will be by mistake. Hence, I will never realise that someone is trying to give a dirty look to me. I will perhaps think that she's ugly. And stop looking at her.
My type of staring is mostly of the 'no strings attached' type. It does have that sexual element in it. But I hope that's not the taboo here. My behaviour has engrained in it, the regard for the other person's reaction. I wonder if that makes me very timid or what. I don't know. I have first hand experience in girls interpreting a guy's decency and hesitation as 'shit-scaredness'; while the same characteristic in a girl is quite fine and natural. Somehow guys are supposed to be a bit mischievous, if not indecent. A perfectly decent guy is, by definition, not mischievous. Hence, quite uninteresting!
Many of my friends, who boast of a lot of success with females have consistently differed from me on this regard. They have been aggressive with females, risking insult in order to secure chances of something interesting happening. I am sure that they might have involuntarily subjected some females to mild harrassment, just in the name of taking their chances with flirting with them. But they don't care. Some girls have responded favourably. Interesting things have happened thereafter. It's these which have mattered to them. Those other cases of mild harrassment have got lost in forgetfulness.
One very important thing about their exploits is that, the whole things gives a feeling that whether some of your overtures are smart flirting or sexual harrassment almost magically decided by how the girl responds. The cleverness is in deciphering the reactions correctly after the first mild overtures. It looks that you stand nowhere in absence of those first overtures (by the way, I stand nowhere!). And you are a sexual abuser if you persist even after receiving negative vibes. A very thin line of smart sensibility exists between being a duffer like my kind, and being an abuser.
So, the thing is. As far as staring goes, I request my female friends not to term every act of clumsy staring as harrassment. Some of them are maiden attempts by a newbie to be that smart initiator. That too, because, one of his friends -- whom he thinks of as a casanova, but who might very well be a scoundrel -- has told him that guys are supposed to make the first move. A cold, unsympathetic look from you will be enough to discourage them from trying another mischief for the rest of their lives. Poor chaps! Have pity on them. Don't hate them all. Just give back that icecold look if you don't think that attempt by them suits them. :)
And in the rare chance, if you happen to like that idiot, for God's sake, do something by yourselves. Most of them will never know if and when they are being encouraged and are therefore expected to take the next step. No! Don't give back that seductive, alluring look of yours. It's not going to work. Mostly, it will strike them down dead like a thunderbolt. If you wait like a lady for him to act like the man, he will bungle up at every step, making a fool of himself, and making it embarrassing for you. Try out something else. Like just sitting on the same table in the tea board or mess and starting a very casual discussion on a very light topic -- like philosophy, spiritualism, or rocket science. Please stay away from heavy niche topics like weather, dresses, good hangout places, movies etc. :)
Well, I'm no expert in the art of talking through eyes. I was first introduced to it in our tenth standard Hindi textbook, in which there was a poem by Bharatendu Harishchandra. I have forgotten the name and the poem. I got diverted to easier, more mundane areas of studies in my future course. I haven't studied that subject further. It's a good thing that I could at least manage to scrap out a crappy blog on it so many years later, out of sheer lack of experience! ;)
I will say no more!
Hope I am able to keep it in a lighter vein.
One of milder form of sexual harrassment is 'staring.' Well, I have felt harrassed when I got a glare from a teacher, or my father, or somebody like that. I have never experienced the 'sexual' part of it.
I wonder if I have ever subjected anybody to such a harrassment! Hm!
Let me see if I have stared at anybody at all. Well. I think I have. A beautiful girl. Or an attractive figure. Perhaps complimented with a revealing dress. Oh yes! I have looked hard. Have I ogled? I don't know!!
Well, it's exciting to watch an attractive girl. No! no strings attached. I would rather have her never know that anybody's watching. Let her go her way. Let me enjoy the good sight. I mean, when I am watching the moon and its beauty, I really don't want it to get conscious of it and stop going its way! :)
OK! What happens if the girls comes to know of it. I don't know. I don't take the risk of figuring out. There are two reason: One, I don't dare; two, I don't care. There are three possible reactions.
One, positive. Well. I really don't know how to handle that. I really don't know the mannerisms of stealing glances at somebody who's doing the same thing with you from across several tables in the cafeteria. Give her a smile? A wink? Act a bit smarter than you are? Gosh! I can't do all those silly things! It's complicated! And how do you know that it's positive? Suppose you misinterpret...then you are sexually harrassing someone without your knowledge!
Two, neutral. Good! No problems as long as it stays that way. I promise to stare only within decent limits...as I said...something like staring at the moon or stars. No strings attached!
Three, negative. Good God! I have never ogled. I have never got back that dirty look either. I don't know if I get back that look. Most probably if I get back that look, it will be by mistake. Hence, I will never realise that someone is trying to give a dirty look to me. I will perhaps think that she's ugly. And stop looking at her.
My type of staring is mostly of the 'no strings attached' type. It does have that sexual element in it. But I hope that's not the taboo here. My behaviour has engrained in it, the regard for the other person's reaction. I wonder if that makes me very timid or what. I don't know. I have first hand experience in girls interpreting a guy's decency and hesitation as 'shit-scaredness'; while the same characteristic in a girl is quite fine and natural. Somehow guys are supposed to be a bit mischievous, if not indecent. A perfectly decent guy is, by definition, not mischievous. Hence, quite uninteresting!
Many of my friends, who boast of a lot of success with females have consistently differed from me on this regard. They have been aggressive with females, risking insult in order to secure chances of something interesting happening. I am sure that they might have involuntarily subjected some females to mild harrassment, just in the name of taking their chances with flirting with them. But they don't care. Some girls have responded favourably. Interesting things have happened thereafter. It's these which have mattered to them. Those other cases of mild harrassment have got lost in forgetfulness.
One very important thing about their exploits is that, the whole things gives a feeling that whether some of your overtures are smart flirting or sexual harrassment almost magically decided by how the girl responds. The cleverness is in deciphering the reactions correctly after the first mild overtures. It looks that you stand nowhere in absence of those first overtures (by the way, I stand nowhere!). And you are a sexual abuser if you persist even after receiving negative vibes. A very thin line of smart sensibility exists between being a duffer like my kind, and being an abuser.
So, the thing is. As far as staring goes, I request my female friends not to term every act of clumsy staring as harrassment. Some of them are maiden attempts by a newbie to be that smart initiator. That too, because, one of his friends -- whom he thinks of as a casanova, but who might very well be a scoundrel -- has told him that guys are supposed to make the first move. A cold, unsympathetic look from you will be enough to discourage them from trying another mischief for the rest of their lives. Poor chaps! Have pity on them. Don't hate them all. Just give back that icecold look if you don't think that attempt by them suits them. :)
And in the rare chance, if you happen to like that idiot, for God's sake, do something by yourselves. Most of them will never know if and when they are being encouraged and are therefore expected to take the next step. No! Don't give back that seductive, alluring look of yours. It's not going to work. Mostly, it will strike them down dead like a thunderbolt. If you wait like a lady for him to act like the man, he will bungle up at every step, making a fool of himself, and making it embarrassing for you. Try out something else. Like just sitting on the same table in the tea board or mess and starting a very casual discussion on a very light topic -- like philosophy, spiritualism, or rocket science. Please stay away from heavy niche topics like weather, dresses, good hangout places, movies etc. :)
Well, I'm no expert in the art of talking through eyes. I was first introduced to it in our tenth standard Hindi textbook, in which there was a poem by Bharatendu Harishchandra. I have forgotten the name and the poem. I got diverted to easier, more mundane areas of studies in my future course. I haven't studied that subject further. It's a good thing that I could at least manage to scrap out a crappy blog on it so many years later, out of sheer lack of experience! ;)
I will say no more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)