Marx's idea of religion is somewhat ambiguous. At least the exponents of Marxist ideology have turned the table on him. That is why a clarification is to be sought. Sloganeering Marxists have repeatedly said that religion is the opium of the masses. The question is that had Marx wanted to mean what underlies in this short precept? Had he really wanted religion to be bypassed by the masses?
The truth lies elsewhere. The downtrodden people all over the world down the ages have been pained at the way they have been treated. There is every reason for them to have suffered the angst of existence. In clinical science, we have been offered to go for analgesia for the physical pains we suffer and this way we have found a true remedy for all sorts of our physical pains. With that view in mind Marx said that "religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature..."
What kind of sigh that is? That sigh arises out of the economic alienation they suffer due to capitalist mode of production. In the capitalist mode of production the mass of producers are totally alienated from their immediate produce as they do not have any possessive control over them and the appropriator class appropriate their labour of pain by political and economical manipulation. This kind of economic alienation is of psychological and spiritual sorts. But Marx's main thrust was on physical sufferings as caused by the economic exploitation. That exploitation leaves them physically wretched all through as they have to lead a life that is most inhuman and threadbare. This threadbare life pushes them back to the wall to wage a bitter struggle simply for mere existence.
And they have nothing and no one to fall back upon in this "heartless world". Where should they get solace? Where should they get respite from the sufferings of domestic drudgery? Where should they get heart to confront this faceless and heartless world of economic exploitation, physical oppression and spiritual alienation? So they have to live under a delusion enforcing them to fall a prey to the make-believe world of religion and heavenly bliss where they find a heart to give vent to their sighs. Whatever fictitious and phantasmagorical that world may be, at least they have a little space of their own there in that chosen world to heave a sigh of relief at the end of their hard days of toil and moil. So, it might be said that Marx's views about religion have some cathartic effects on the religious masses. Who are we to deny them of their world?
Marx also said that "the religious world is but the reflex of the real world." What happens to the suffering people who don't have any way whatsoever to smooth their pains of diurnal hunger, death and disease and pains of existential pain? What they will do in that case? Who will shelter them in their times of misery? Marx too had no answer for them in his time. Rather he opined that suffering people have no other options but to take to religion which like opium can soothe their pains at least for the time being. And there is absolutely nothing wrong of them in their falling prey to religion. Without the benevolent impact of analgesia of religion, there is no way for them to bear with the situation.
So, Marx had never repudiated and spoken ill of religion as such but rather he detected and supported the positive role played by religion in no uncertain terms. Without this prejudice, the oft-quoted fragmented slogan "Religion is opium of the masses" turns out to be vague political jargon not in conformity with the Marx's idea of religion. He knew quite well how to address the issue in true perspective. He is not blame for the ambiguity in his idea of religion. And so many ideas of his have been vulgarised and are still being vulgarised by none other than the diehard Marxists.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Terrorism and Politics of Violence
Is terrorism just ostensible display of violence? Is it just indiscriminate violence perpetrated by some groups of 'wayward people' against the state and its citizens as we are most often led to believe? But is it not a state-sponsored idea that groups of wayward people commonly known as extremists only are reponsible for all those massacres and indiscriminate acts of violence?
In simple terms, it is waging violence on the people and against the people. The objective is to reinforce the status quo or to found a new base of status quo by taking recourse to violence creating fear psychosis by the way among different sections of the people. The terrorists, whoever they may be, are status quoists in some way. Then there are two lines of status quoism, one is diamerically opposite to the other and they are mutually exclusiveand destructive.
One is always trying to reinforce its power base which is already there. And the other tries to subvert the already-there power base to enforce and to build an alternative of its own, be radical or parochial or otherwise. What can be said with a fair amount of certainty is that it is a war of violence between two warring factions with their own respective vested interests and by the way one is always terrorising the other. It is a perpetual war, a powermongering business that finds no end to the length of the tunnel.
This tunnel vision takes us to the points of asking a few questions that demand immediate and forthright answers. Who perpetrates and can perpetrate violence at will? Those who have power at their immediate authority. Who enjoys power? Those only who have the established political authority and thus they have all the powers to do whatever they want to do to garner more power for themselves and to be more powerful in the process. They refuse to accept any reason to whatever they do to perpetuate their undue authority.
Now, who is or what is the most powerful of all. The state and its executives. The people or for that matter 'the wayward people' can never be so to wield so much power. They have not that much authority to to wield power over the power-that-be of the state or its executives. They are always at their mercy and they are always at the receiving end. In difficult times the people take to the street to tear apart the authority of the state. But they hardly succeed. And as they hardly succeed, the reins are grabbed from the people by those socalled 'wayward people' and it seems to appear that they are acting as the supposed saviours of 'the wretched of the earth' by waging a war of violence against the state and its establishment.
Whether they are true-blue messiah of the wretched people or not, it will not be far from the social reality that acts of terrorism and sporadic activities of extremism is a glaring manifestation of popular grievances against all kinds of exploitation and repression. Popular unrests start with much fanfare but they beat a hasty retreat when faced with the state's repressive machinery. And where they end up, the proponents of violent means of political war or acts of terrorism take up the cudgel even if they do not enjoy the massive popular support. But the state has its own brand of political stratagems to combat the subsequent situations.
So, being the supremely powerful, the state only can perpetrate violence and terror to maintain the status quo of its power base and its superstructure. If anyone or anything does come to challenge its exclusive authority, it never stops short of anything by way of crushing the challenge with power and vengeance. It simply is wont to terrorise to maintain its seat of power. It maintains state of terror to create fear psychosis in the minds of its detractors so that they never dare to bare their swords of rebellion.
And one more thing is that the state does not always bare its fangs in ostensible display of violence against the people as it has its many other options to wait and see. As the concept of the state is based on vested interest, power and violence, the state always creates an ambience of violence with its propaganda machinery. That 'ambient violence' of fear psychosis acts like a mass-destructive weapon which deters the people from upstaging an uprising and always keeps them subdued and which in normal times forbids the power-that-be to use direct violence. In times of peace, the sleeping lion generally does not get up on its feet to bare its ugly fangs.
But when that peace is disturbed? The footsoldiers are called to take guard and all hell let loose. And the state-sponsored brand of SS or 'Salwa Judum' takes the law unto themselves to maintain the sacred laws and order of the land and to combat the anti-national anti-people forces of the land. They say that it is not violence or terrorism. They never say that violence breeds violence. Violence breeds violence only when the people strike back and then only the peace is disturbed!
In simple terms, it is waging violence on the people and against the people. The objective is to reinforce the status quo or to found a new base of status quo by taking recourse to violence creating fear psychosis by the way among different sections of the people. The terrorists, whoever they may be, are status quoists in some way. Then there are two lines of status quoism, one is diamerically opposite to the other and they are mutually exclusiveand destructive.
One is always trying to reinforce its power base which is already there. And the other tries to subvert the already-there power base to enforce and to build an alternative of its own, be radical or parochial or otherwise. What can be said with a fair amount of certainty is that it is a war of violence between two warring factions with their own respective vested interests and by the way one is always terrorising the other. It is a perpetual war, a powermongering business that finds no end to the length of the tunnel.
This tunnel vision takes us to the points of asking a few questions that demand immediate and forthright answers. Who perpetrates and can perpetrate violence at will? Those who have power at their immediate authority. Who enjoys power? Those only who have the established political authority and thus they have all the powers to do whatever they want to do to garner more power for themselves and to be more powerful in the process. They refuse to accept any reason to whatever they do to perpetuate their undue authority.
Now, who is or what is the most powerful of all. The state and its executives. The people or for that matter 'the wayward people' can never be so to wield so much power. They have not that much authority to to wield power over the power-that-be of the state or its executives. They are always at their mercy and they are always at the receiving end. In difficult times the people take to the street to tear apart the authority of the state. But they hardly succeed. And as they hardly succeed, the reins are grabbed from the people by those socalled 'wayward people' and it seems to appear that they are acting as the supposed saviours of 'the wretched of the earth' by waging a war of violence against the state and its establishment.
Whether they are true-blue messiah of the wretched people or not, it will not be far from the social reality that acts of terrorism and sporadic activities of extremism is a glaring manifestation of popular grievances against all kinds of exploitation and repression. Popular unrests start with much fanfare but they beat a hasty retreat when faced with the state's repressive machinery. And where they end up, the proponents of violent means of political war or acts of terrorism take up the cudgel even if they do not enjoy the massive popular support. But the state has its own brand of political stratagems to combat the subsequent situations.
So, being the supremely powerful, the state only can perpetrate violence and terror to maintain the status quo of its power base and its superstructure. If anyone or anything does come to challenge its exclusive authority, it never stops short of anything by way of crushing the challenge with power and vengeance. It simply is wont to terrorise to maintain its seat of power. It maintains state of terror to create fear psychosis in the minds of its detractors so that they never dare to bare their swords of rebellion.
And one more thing is that the state does not always bare its fangs in ostensible display of violence against the people as it has its many other options to wait and see. As the concept of the state is based on vested interest, power and violence, the state always creates an ambience of violence with its propaganda machinery. That 'ambient violence' of fear psychosis acts like a mass-destructive weapon which deters the people from upstaging an uprising and always keeps them subdued and which in normal times forbids the power-that-be to use direct violence. In times of peace, the sleeping lion generally does not get up on its feet to bare its ugly fangs.
But when that peace is disturbed? The footsoldiers are called to take guard and all hell let loose. And the state-sponsored brand of SS or 'Salwa Judum' takes the law unto themselves to maintain the sacred laws and order of the land and to combat the anti-national anti-people forces of the land. They say that it is not violence or terrorism. They never say that violence breeds violence. Violence breeds violence only when the people strike back and then only the peace is disturbed!
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
To Be? or Not To Be?
We always suffer from the To-Be-or- Not- To-Be syndrome. This syndrome is the drawing line or a great divider between life and death, so to speak. Sometime when we have got to take some firm decision, we falter this way or that way and we act like a couch-potato becoming an inert soul of sorts. And indecision rules the roost in our mindset. We become dead and deadpan. Nothing can move us as though life has come to a screeching halt.
Actually this To-Be-or- Not- To-Be syndrome is the manifestation of our level of mind. Our life is always confronted and infested with uncertainty and unpredictibility. We are never sure about what is in store for us or what is going to happen to us in this hot and happening world. And our life is poised against all odds. This oddity leaves us simply vacant, forlorn and forsaken and sometimes disgusted with our predicament. We get immersed in a deep quagmire the depth of which further pushes us back to the wall. We just feel helpless.
The more we feel helpless the more we want to fall back on something or someone. This void creates a make-believe world for us where we want to find some solace, some breathing space for ourselves. That breathing space, as it were, is our last resort and our occult world where we pontificate our pettyfoggy ideas and we fall a prey to irrationality by way of believing in religion, God, superstition etc. And we are turned into irrational beings at least for a few moments' respite. But do we get respite at all? Does our life manage to get over the crisis of uncertainty and unpredictibility to decide what to do and what not to do or how to do and how not to do. Or, for that matter, whether or not to do?
Most probably not and never ever. Yet we live and live on. This living seems to be living in a world of purgatory far from the madding crowd. Still we never get taught. To get out of this rut, we decide to take some forthwith decision which again fails us and cannot prompt or force us on an even keel. And we are back to square one. Life has already come to a full circle. But it is already too late. Our being has lost all the power to decide what to do and what not to do or for that matter whether or not to do. And God never stands at this threshold to guide us or stands us in good stead to decide whether to be or not to be.
This is life awaiting death as though death is a great leveler or an omniscient educator. But death cannot draw the dividing line so far as our catastrophe drives us to a further wilderness. We decide but we cannot decide. We cannot decide but we have got to decide. Decision fails again, indecision takes charge.
To be or not to be?
Actually this To-Be-or- Not- To-Be syndrome is the manifestation of our level of mind. Our life is always confronted and infested with uncertainty and unpredictibility. We are never sure about what is in store for us or what is going to happen to us in this hot and happening world. And our life is poised against all odds. This oddity leaves us simply vacant, forlorn and forsaken and sometimes disgusted with our predicament. We get immersed in a deep quagmire the depth of which further pushes us back to the wall. We just feel helpless.
The more we feel helpless the more we want to fall back on something or someone. This void creates a make-believe world for us where we want to find some solace, some breathing space for ourselves. That breathing space, as it were, is our last resort and our occult world where we pontificate our pettyfoggy ideas and we fall a prey to irrationality by way of believing in religion, God, superstition etc. And we are turned into irrational beings at least for a few moments' respite. But do we get respite at all? Does our life manage to get over the crisis of uncertainty and unpredictibility to decide what to do and what not to do or how to do and how not to do. Or, for that matter, whether or not to do?
Most probably not and never ever. Yet we live and live on. This living seems to be living in a world of purgatory far from the madding crowd. Still we never get taught. To get out of this rut, we decide to take some forthwith decision which again fails us and cannot prompt or force us on an even keel. And we are back to square one. Life has already come to a full circle. But it is already too late. Our being has lost all the power to decide what to do and what not to do or for that matter whether or not to do. And God never stands at this threshold to guide us or stands us in good stead to decide whether to be or not to be.
This is life awaiting death as though death is a great leveler or an omniscient educator. But death cannot draw the dividing line so far as our catastrophe drives us to a further wilderness. We decide but we cannot decide. We cannot decide but we have got to decide. Decision fails again, indecision takes charge.
To be or not to be?
Sunday, July 22, 2007
A Layman's Views of Cosmology
The other day only I was talking to a friend about what we know and think about cosmology. We are just laymen not knowing the nitty-gritty things of this branch of science. We only know what comes too easily and visibly in our perceptions. And after a brief deliberation we came to the conclusion that the theories of Big Bang and Steady State propounded by the scientists are just mere hypotheses. At least to laymen like us who believe what they see under the sun.
They say that the universe is continually moving and expanding tending to reach a certain point and thereby creating a situation of implosion which can pave the way for the second Big Bang. But nothing is proved to draw a viable inference for us. And again, when Stephen Hawkins say of the situation during the creation of the universe at the ten to the power minus twenty-ninth of a second, we just get bemused at the idea of that spatio-temporal consequences of the universe of that humanly imperceptible moment. These theories are far from our cognisable perception. We laymen cannot voice our feelings of our befuddled knowledge. We are at a loss and everything is at a stake for us.
We are small people. Big Science never enters our world from the back door. We remain aloof and outsider as ever. Is not it?
They say that the universe is continually moving and expanding tending to reach a certain point and thereby creating a situation of implosion which can pave the way for the second Big Bang. But nothing is proved to draw a viable inference for us. And again, when Stephen Hawkins say of the situation during the creation of the universe at the ten to the power minus twenty-ninth of a second, we just get bemused at the idea of that spatio-temporal consequences of the universe of that humanly imperceptible moment. These theories are far from our cognisable perception. We laymen cannot voice our feelings of our befuddled knowledge. We are at a loss and everything is at a stake for us.
We are small people. Big Science never enters our world from the back door. We remain aloof and outsider as ever. Is not it?
Saturday, July 21, 2007
We Know Nothing, We Know Something
Every action has its reaction in its wake and every reaction must have some action before that. Nothing happens in this world without any cause. Cause precedes effect. Ascertaining this cause and effect duality is what we call science in our common sense and this is also the basic objective of philosophy. And herein merge the concept of science and philosophy and human knowledge is conceptualized holistically. Whereas science explores the natural world, philosophy delves deep into the truism of human world. Both human world and the natural world are the realms to be explored to ascertain the cause-effect duality of knowledge.
It is not that science has discovered everything or it can discover everything. That is science's apparent limitations. What is not known today can be or may be known some day. But we cannot say that what is hitherto unknown cannot be known and that is absolutely in the realm of mysticism or supernaturalism. So much so that supernaturalism or mysticism will dictate terms to what is unknown or what cannot be known in absolute terms. Has the supernaturalism or mysticism has that kind of power to reckon with? In actual reality there is nothing to be called supernatural or mystic. If we carry the burden of supernaturalism or mysticism, we must say that it is superstition. Superstition is nothing but our dark ignorance which leads us to the realm of blind faith. It blinds our vision in such a way that we cannot see reason in exploring truth.
We know many mysteries of the nature and we do not know many mysteries of nature. What we do not know is generally wrapped in mystery and what is wrapped in mystery can be or may be unwrapped to our knowledge with the development of our inquisitive and cognitive prowess. With that power of empirical knowledge at our disposal we have unraveled many mysteries of the universe and with that power only we can still unravel many mysteries. This is a never-ending process and ever-evolving principle of our knowledge system. Not only that, that process is constituted heuristically so as to find out our desired truth by supposition and assumption standing to the test of our past gains of knowledge and experience. Even then we cannot say that we know the truth or we have absolute knowledge.
Actually what we know as truth is nothing but approximate to truth and the knowledge of the absolute is just but relative. In the history of epistemology we have known many truths or knowledge that had later turned hostile to the new challenges posed by the later development. So, knowledge or truth is evolutionary and is always evolving. In that sense, truth is approximate to truth and the knowledge of the absolute is relative. We always know something of everything but not everything of everything. And if that is so, we never know the truth and we cannot know anything as such. The “suchness” of truth remains elusive to us. This mystery drags us on to an unending odyssey into the mystery of the universe.
It is not that science has discovered everything or it can discover everything. That is science's apparent limitations. What is not known today can be or may be known some day. But we cannot say that what is hitherto unknown cannot be known and that is absolutely in the realm of mysticism or supernaturalism. So much so that supernaturalism or mysticism will dictate terms to what is unknown or what cannot be known in absolute terms. Has the supernaturalism or mysticism has that kind of power to reckon with? In actual reality there is nothing to be called supernatural or mystic. If we carry the burden of supernaturalism or mysticism, we must say that it is superstition. Superstition is nothing but our dark ignorance which leads us to the realm of blind faith. It blinds our vision in such a way that we cannot see reason in exploring truth.
We know many mysteries of the nature and we do not know many mysteries of nature. What we do not know is generally wrapped in mystery and what is wrapped in mystery can be or may be unwrapped to our knowledge with the development of our inquisitive and cognitive prowess. With that power of empirical knowledge at our disposal we have unraveled many mysteries of the universe and with that power only we can still unravel many mysteries. This is a never-ending process and ever-evolving principle of our knowledge system. Not only that, that process is constituted heuristically so as to find out our desired truth by supposition and assumption standing to the test of our past gains of knowledge and experience. Even then we cannot say that we know the truth or we have absolute knowledge.
Actually what we know as truth is nothing but approximate to truth and the knowledge of the absolute is just but relative. In the history of epistemology we have known many truths or knowledge that had later turned hostile to the new challenges posed by the later development. So, knowledge or truth is evolutionary and is always evolving. In that sense, truth is approximate to truth and the knowledge of the absolute is relative. We always know something of everything but not everything of everything. And if that is so, we never know the truth and we cannot know anything as such. The “suchness” of truth remains elusive to us. This mystery drags us on to an unending odyssey into the mystery of the universe.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
The Concept of Powerful Country
Some people always boast of powerful countries. They do not care to think of the implication of powerful countries. America and its allies are powerful countries. There is no denying of the fact. Yes, they are more powerful than the other countries. They are powerful not only in terms of accumulation of gross wealth but also by virtue of their enormous pile-up of destructive arms and ammunition in their possession. On the one hand, with their economic power they can sell and purchase the poorer countries many times more and on the other, with their military power of superiority they keep those countries at bay by creating a war psychosis among them. This is the political hegemony perpetrated by those so-called powerful countries.
The concept of powerful country is actually derogatory to the ordinary people's conscience and sentiment. Why a country or some countries will be more powerful than the rest of the world? When someone is rich or some country is rich, it can be said for sure that that particular man or that particular country has sucked the blood of the poorer people. Without depriving others nobody could be rich, without taking away the sovereignty of other countries no country could be more powerful than the others.
Only economic power conjoined with muscle power, not moral or ideological power, makes someone or something more powerful. When a country is economically powerful, it paves the way for its being politically powerful. And that political power enhances the power of the barrel of the gun. And the power of the barrel of the gun always aims at those who are economically poor. But first of all we should remember that economical power grows out of depriving. The deprived ones are always less powerful. The powerful countries always rob the other countries of their political and economic sovereignty by imposing their all-powerful political hegemony.
The concept of powerful country is actually derogatory to the ordinary people's conscience and sentiment. Why a country or some countries will be more powerful than the rest of the world? When someone is rich or some country is rich, it can be said for sure that that particular man or that particular country has sucked the blood of the poorer people. Without depriving others nobody could be rich, without taking away the sovereignty of other countries no country could be more powerful than the others.
Only economic power conjoined with muscle power, not moral or ideological power, makes someone or something more powerful. When a country is economically powerful, it paves the way for its being politically powerful. And that political power enhances the power of the barrel of the gun. And the power of the barrel of the gun always aims at those who are economically poor. But first of all we should remember that economical power grows out of depriving. The deprived ones are always less powerful. The powerful countries always rob the other countries of their political and economic sovereignty by imposing their all-powerful political hegemony.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Who Outnumbers Whom : The Theists or the Atheists?
Who outnumbers whom? The atheist or the theist?
This is a great contention. It can be said with great amount of certainty that the number of the atheists are gradually on the rise. But the breed of theists is overwhelming and is in absolute majority. And in the long run they will remain so. The atheists will never be in a position to outnumber them. This is no beating about the bush.
Man is a spiritual being by nature. He has spiritual hunger of his own and is always hungry for spiritual food. He can fast on physical food but not on spiritual food without which he cannot survive. That 'manna' is quintessential for his essential being and self. There is no denying of the fact.
To say that man is essentially a spiritual being does in no way mean that it is all the way religiosity or belief in the existence of God is the prime mover of a man's existence, rather it is a way of his secular life and being and it is in no way akin to practising so-called god-fearing religion. And at the same time this spiritualism has no bearing on the pettyfogging spiritualism of the so-called god-men.
Actually man is the only animal who is always fearing of the fury of nature and has some amazing feeling for the beauty of nature or for that matter the mystery and wonder of nature which has in the process given rise to religion and science thereafter. Science has tried its best to demystify the nature by way of exploring deep into the realm of nature and has been successful to some extent to know the rules of law into its system. But science has failed miserably to get to the rock bottom of nature. It is no fault of science, rather it is its limitation. That limitation will always be there. And and that limitation always drags science from far to farther but not to the farthest.
It seems that the absolute rules of law into the very system of nature will remain elusive from the cognizance of human nature or science as such. That has created a void in the cognizance capacity of the human beings. And in that case religion or the concept of God has come to the fore to fill that vacuum. Marx has rightly said that religion is the opium of the masses. This oft-quoted saying of Marx is most oftenly misquoted by the Marxist proponents. What he actually intended to mean as regards religion is that the spiritual verves and flavours of religion allays the worries of uncertainty and existential pangs of the people and as such it brings about analgesia as and when human predicament finds no easy way to cathartic denouement.
Laymen who have generally have got nothing to do with the intricacies of science have managed to grasp the idea of God as an easy recourse and they have remained the theists as ever and taking to theism has come to good stead for them so far as the wonders and mysteries of this universe are concerned and this has its universal appeal. On the other hand, those who are atheists are neither god-fearing nor religious and they are few and far between but they too negotiate the universal mysteries and wonders by way of espousing the verves and flavours of spirituality. It stands to reason that this equation is not going to be changed in the foreseeable future.
It will be another wonder if this equation is ever changed?
This is a great contention. It can be said with great amount of certainty that the number of the atheists are gradually on the rise. But the breed of theists is overwhelming and is in absolute majority. And in the long run they will remain so. The atheists will never be in a position to outnumber them. This is no beating about the bush.
Man is a spiritual being by nature. He has spiritual hunger of his own and is always hungry for spiritual food. He can fast on physical food but not on spiritual food without which he cannot survive. That 'manna' is quintessential for his essential being and self. There is no denying of the fact.
To say that man is essentially a spiritual being does in no way mean that it is all the way religiosity or belief in the existence of God is the prime mover of a man's existence, rather it is a way of his secular life and being and it is in no way akin to practising so-called god-fearing religion. And at the same time this spiritualism has no bearing on the pettyfogging spiritualism of the so-called god-men.
Actually man is the only animal who is always fearing of the fury of nature and has some amazing feeling for the beauty of nature or for that matter the mystery and wonder of nature which has in the process given rise to religion and science thereafter. Science has tried its best to demystify the nature by way of exploring deep into the realm of nature and has been successful to some extent to know the rules of law into its system. But science has failed miserably to get to the rock bottom of nature. It is no fault of science, rather it is its limitation. That limitation will always be there. And and that limitation always drags science from far to farther but not to the farthest.
It seems that the absolute rules of law into the very system of nature will remain elusive from the cognizance of human nature or science as such. That has created a void in the cognizance capacity of the human beings. And in that case religion or the concept of God has come to the fore to fill that vacuum. Marx has rightly said that religion is the opium of the masses. This oft-quoted saying of Marx is most oftenly misquoted by the Marxist proponents. What he actually intended to mean as regards religion is that the spiritual verves and flavours of religion allays the worries of uncertainty and existential pangs of the people and as such it brings about analgesia as and when human predicament finds no easy way to cathartic denouement.
Laymen who have generally have got nothing to do with the intricacies of science have managed to grasp the idea of God as an easy recourse and they have remained the theists as ever and taking to theism has come to good stead for them so far as the wonders and mysteries of this universe are concerned and this has its universal appeal. On the other hand, those who are atheists are neither god-fearing nor religious and they are few and far between but they too negotiate the universal mysteries and wonders by way of espousing the verves and flavours of spirituality. It stands to reason that this equation is not going to be changed in the foreseeable future.
It will be another wonder if this equation is ever changed?
Monday, July 16, 2007
Why the Muslims are a Persecuted Community?
Today there are a quite few numbers of absorbing discussions concerning the Muslim community. I first tell you that I am a Muslim by birth but not by faith or practice, I am a non-believer to say the least. Nonetheless I too feel some sort of uncanny ditherings about the community as a whole and that is why I don't have much respect for the community. As I really feel sorry for their poor stature, I feel like giving vent to my accounts of their state of affairs with well-meaning gestures to them.
I have told that they are of poor stature. Why so?
I have noticed that the Muslims are very much Muslims in their overall attitude which is to some extent sickening. Why do they always carry their religion on their shoulder with all too ostensible bag and baggage? Why do this baggage always so ostensible? People belonging to other communities are also religious and god-fearing. They also regularly perform rituals of their own even sometimes more than the Muslims have to do. In spite of all this, they are too afraid to call themselves by names. Generally they don't give a damn to it.
Why do the Muslim community always suffer from identity crisis? Why can't they save themselves? Why do they always suffer from the self-inflicted ethnic minority syndrome? Why do they always uphold religion above everything else? Why are they so wary of imbibing scientific and rational mentality and temperament? Why their terms and conditions are dictated from extraneous pre-conditions and by some self-styled Ulemas? Why do they fear of modernity? Why do they not come out to address their grievances politically? Why are their community and society so regimented and why not so liberal? And so on so forth.
These sorts of questions should be the talking points of the day. Yes, behind all of these vexing issues, there are socio-political and historical backlashes. No one can deny this and there is every reason to accept this. But to come out this rut and to gain a strong foothold in the socio-political culture of the world politics, the Muslims themselves have to come forward to ward off the barriers facing the Muslim community. No one is going to spare an inch of space for them. They have to gain it for themselves. They have to be the lord of themselves.
To this effect, the Muslim community has got to keep shy of religious dogmatism and embrace modern education, scientific and rational culture. They should bear in mind that they are human beings first and they are Muslims after then, only being Muslims will not hold water for them in the long run in this conflicting and competitive universe.
It is often told that the Muslims are a persecuted community. Yes, they are persecuted more often than not by other communities and by the present political setup. But have they ever been prompted to rally themselves against this persecution? It is their own world vision that has kept them down and it is their own frailty that has allowed themselves to fall a victim to persecution by others. If it is to blame anybody, they have to first blame it on themselves. They are persecuted by their own fanatical laxity.
I have told that they are of poor stature. Why so?
I have noticed that the Muslims are very much Muslims in their overall attitude which is to some extent sickening. Why do they always carry their religion on their shoulder with all too ostensible bag and baggage? Why do this baggage always so ostensible? People belonging to other communities are also religious and god-fearing. They also regularly perform rituals of their own even sometimes more than the Muslims have to do. In spite of all this, they are too afraid to call themselves by names. Generally they don't give a damn to it.
Why do the Muslim community always suffer from identity crisis? Why can't they save themselves? Why do they always suffer from the self-inflicted ethnic minority syndrome? Why do they always uphold religion above everything else? Why are they so wary of imbibing scientific and rational mentality and temperament? Why their terms and conditions are dictated from extraneous pre-conditions and by some self-styled Ulemas? Why do they fear of modernity? Why do they not come out to address their grievances politically? Why are their community and society so regimented and why not so liberal? And so on so forth.
These sorts of questions should be the talking points of the day. Yes, behind all of these vexing issues, there are socio-political and historical backlashes. No one can deny this and there is every reason to accept this. But to come out this rut and to gain a strong foothold in the socio-political culture of the world politics, the Muslims themselves have to come forward to ward off the barriers facing the Muslim community. No one is going to spare an inch of space for them. They have to gain it for themselves. They have to be the lord of themselves.
To this effect, the Muslim community has got to keep shy of religious dogmatism and embrace modern education, scientific and rational culture. They should bear in mind that they are human beings first and they are Muslims after then, only being Muslims will not hold water for them in the long run in this conflicting and competitive universe.
It is often told that the Muslims are a persecuted community. Yes, they are persecuted more often than not by other communities and by the present political setup. But have they ever been prompted to rally themselves against this persecution? It is their own world vision that has kept them down and it is their own frailty that has allowed themselves to fall a victim to persecution by others. If it is to blame anybody, they have to first blame it on themselves. They are persecuted by their own fanatical laxity.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
A cat has Nine Lives!
A cat has nine lives, so you say. But does cat live to count nine?
Yes. Once I read that cats can count. They can count seven. And only seven. Whether that is true does not matter but what matters is that animals do have some emotional attachment with the human beings and their own species.
They experience ‘experience’ also. We have all observed this or if we minutely observe, we can experience this. This is particularly true about domestic animals. It might be owing to close association and intimate relation that they manage to learn a few things and they apply this experience if and when the situation demands of them.
They also have joy and sorrow of their own which also they share with their masters and kith and kin. We have also observed the behaviour and mental acumen of the trained animals let alone the pet ones. So animals are just not dullards as we generally believe and so we cannot take them for a ride. Intelligent Quotient (IQ) of theirs might not be high but their Emotional Quotient (EQ) is fairly even.
Yes. Once I read that cats can count. They can count seven. And only seven. Whether that is true does not matter but what matters is that animals do have some emotional attachment with the human beings and their own species.
They experience ‘experience’ also. We have all observed this or if we minutely observe, we can experience this. This is particularly true about domestic animals. It might be owing to close association and intimate relation that they manage to learn a few things and they apply this experience if and when the situation demands of them.
They also have joy and sorrow of their own which also they share with their masters and kith and kin. We have also observed the behaviour and mental acumen of the trained animals let alone the pet ones. So animals are just not dullards as we generally believe and so we cannot take them for a ride. Intelligent Quotient (IQ) of theirs might not be high but their Emotional Quotient (EQ) is fairly even.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Is Life Just 'Eat, Drink And Be Merry'?
Is our life just 'eat, drink, and be merry'? If that is so, does it make any sense so far as the depth and vastness of life are concerned. Our life is more meaningful than anything else and life is anything but just 'eat, drink, and be merry'.
What is life as such? Is it just a biological existence like that of any other living being? An animal only lives with its biological existence. But a human being is more than an animal. His living being is also his intelligent being. That is why a man is a man.
A man is a man because he is a man. But on what count he is a man. He is a man on account of his being an intelligent being. And his intelligent being proves to be meaningful in more way than one. But this intelligent being is not merely his so-called intelligence that places him on top of the animals who are more instinctive than intelligent.
Intelligence covers a wide range of human sensibility like experience, discriminative power of judgment, creative faculty, moral virtuosity along with senses of love, courage, bravery, tolerance, fellow-feeling, equality, perseverance etc. And these values constitute the basics of human life and humanity.
When we come to think of humanity, we transcend the conventional idea of way of living like an animal being whose merry-making in life is confined in just eating and drinking. They just live to survive and surviving is their only way of living. Nothing less and nothing more. There is nothing meaningful in this way of living - no goal to reach, no mission to achieve.
But on our part, it is nothing like that. We have many goals to reach, many missions to achieve. This missionary zeal survives us and drives home the point that we are all, we are not selfish giants. Our life is seamlessly embedded with society, nature and the world. And feeling like being seamlessly embedded this way only, we can think of leading a humane life and we can get to the true meaning of humanity.
What is life as such? Is it just a biological existence like that of any other living being? An animal only lives with its biological existence. But a human being is more than an animal. His living being is also his intelligent being. That is why a man is a man.
A man is a man because he is a man. But on what count he is a man. He is a man on account of his being an intelligent being. And his intelligent being proves to be meaningful in more way than one. But this intelligent being is not merely his so-called intelligence that places him on top of the animals who are more instinctive than intelligent.
Intelligence covers a wide range of human sensibility like experience, discriminative power of judgment, creative faculty, moral virtuosity along with senses of love, courage, bravery, tolerance, fellow-feeling, equality, perseverance etc. And these values constitute the basics of human life and humanity.
When we come to think of humanity, we transcend the conventional idea of way of living like an animal being whose merry-making in life is confined in just eating and drinking. They just live to survive and surviving is their only way of living. Nothing less and nothing more. There is nothing meaningful in this way of living - no goal to reach, no mission to achieve.
But on our part, it is nothing like that. We have many goals to reach, many missions to achieve. This missionary zeal survives us and drives home the point that we are all, we are not selfish giants. Our life is seamlessly embedded with society, nature and the world. And feeling like being seamlessly embedded this way only, we can think of leading a humane life and we can get to the true meaning of humanity.
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Are Homo Sapiens are truly Human Beings?
Human beings have come a long way in course of civilization. The savage people are now garbed in more fashionable guises. Everyday they shed old clothes for a a new one. Yes, they have become civilised. Now they have given up their old habit of roaming from jungle to jungle to gather foods and hunt animals. They are no longer nomadic tribe, they are no longer gathering or hunting people as they have progressed from savage state to modern cosmopolitan conglomerate.
Yes, they have become civilised vis-a-vis the ancient savage people. No doubt that they are civilised in the so-called senses. At least outwardly and physically they are civilised. What is that to it? What is the state of affaiirs of their inner world? Inwardly have they become civilised in its truest senses? Have the overcome the savage mentality of the savage people which was their true inner world. They were just up the ladder without being able to forsake their animality. Animality was ingrained in their physical world and inner world as well.
It is no wonder that the civilised human beings carry the legacy of animality of the animal species as it is said that human beings have been evolved from the animals. And as they are positioned and situated at least one step further in the evolutionary ladder from the animals, the human beings area more animal than the true animals. Who can deny that humans are not animals? So, a man is an animal and an intelligent animal he is!
So, who can say that it is wrong for a man to be animal with his beastly character traits? An animal is by nature is ferocious and violent in its overall behaviours. It is instinctively violent. So is a man but he is violent and ferocious in his conscious nature. Not instinctively but consciously he is violent in his behaviour to his fellow creatures and consciously he engages himself in waging aggression against others especially against the weaker ones. And by inflicting aggressive dominance over others, he wants to be the king lion in the human jungles.
A man is said to be the intelligent animal. What is this intelligence when he cannot keep his instincts at bay to behave himself in more humanly. He even gets educated to behave properly in his social world but despite that so-called education why does he remain an animal as ever? Why does he always remain immersed in seven cardinal sins when he is claimed to be not belonging to the animal or beastly beings? By the yardsticks of his intelligence and education, a man should always give peace a chance, yet his ill-literate civil sense tramples upon the peace and harmony among human beings.
Despite all those high-falutin education, why there is so much division and unrest? Why a civil society is segmented into so many stratas? Why a handful of rich rules the roost over a vast mass of poor people? Where is 'demos' in democracy? So many unhealthy questions just keep on creeping into our intelligent mind when we try to delve deep into conscious mind as regards the the consequences of animality and beastliness in human beings. Only a handful of beast has ravaged the whole world and created such a catastrophe that the human world has become more and more unhabitable. The inevitability is that these bunch of beasts should be wiped off the soil of the world to make it a better human world.
Yes, they have become civilised vis-a-vis the ancient savage people. No doubt that they are civilised in the so-called senses. At least outwardly and physically they are civilised. What is that to it? What is the state of affaiirs of their inner world? Inwardly have they become civilised in its truest senses? Have the overcome the savage mentality of the savage people which was their true inner world. They were just up the ladder without being able to forsake their animality. Animality was ingrained in their physical world and inner world as well.
It is no wonder that the civilised human beings carry the legacy of animality of the animal species as it is said that human beings have been evolved from the animals. And as they are positioned and situated at least one step further in the evolutionary ladder from the animals, the human beings area more animal than the true animals. Who can deny that humans are not animals? So, a man is an animal and an intelligent animal he is!
So, who can say that it is wrong for a man to be animal with his beastly character traits? An animal is by nature is ferocious and violent in its overall behaviours. It is instinctively violent. So is a man but he is violent and ferocious in his conscious nature. Not instinctively but consciously he is violent in his behaviour to his fellow creatures and consciously he engages himself in waging aggression against others especially against the weaker ones. And by inflicting aggressive dominance over others, he wants to be the king lion in the human jungles.
A man is said to be the intelligent animal. What is this intelligence when he cannot keep his instincts at bay to behave himself in more humanly. He even gets educated to behave properly in his social world but despite that so-called education why does he remain an animal as ever? Why does he always remain immersed in seven cardinal sins when he is claimed to be not belonging to the animal or beastly beings? By the yardsticks of his intelligence and education, a man should always give peace a chance, yet his ill-literate civil sense tramples upon the peace and harmony among human beings.
Despite all those high-falutin education, why there is so much division and unrest? Why a civil society is segmented into so many stratas? Why a handful of rich rules the roost over a vast mass of poor people? Where is 'demos' in democracy? So many unhealthy questions just keep on creeping into our intelligent mind when we try to delve deep into conscious mind as regards the the consequences of animality and beastliness in human beings. Only a handful of beast has ravaged the whole world and created such a catastrophe that the human world has become more and more unhabitable. The inevitability is that these bunch of beasts should be wiped off the soil of the world to make it a better human world.
Friday, July 6, 2007
What is Nationalism? Why is Nationalism?
Are you proud of your nationality?
It is not very clear what does nationalism actually mean for an individual. Is it to love a particular nation and to hate a particular nation or nations? When someone loves a particular nation, he has to love to hate all other nations en bloc. Love is such a blind thing! So you love your nation and hate mine. Is this a good proposition to propose one thing to dispose the other? The power-that-be has always parroted the idea of nationalism in close relation to patriotism this way or that way. This is a knee-jerking idea they cherish throughout their career of statesmanship. This is truly crafty enough to condone their every feat and features of evil designs.
Once you are smitten by faith and fashion of nationalism, you are called a true patriot. Patriotism comes hand in glove with nationalism and they are two sides of the same coin whatever value the coin is embedded with. They come handy to each other. When there is national crisis, you are offered to lay down your persoanl grievances and sufferings at the altar of patriotism and you are on a roll. Again, when your patriotism is at precarious stake, you have got to roll back on your nationalism and you get confused which way to roll backing in the end. This is the crux of the problem you face so far as your nationalism and patriotism are concerned.
In the fitness of things, it turns out that the powers-that-be and elites of the society are the dream merchants of nationalism and patriotism. They hawk these ideas to their citizens as being the cool customers of their dream merchandise. It is even more dangerous when it comes to war and rebellion. The citizens are driven to the point of jingoism by their plain skullduggery they are brainstormed in way they are prompted and even forced to side with them just to perpetuate the status quo. This is what they call nationalism or patriotism.
The paradigm of nationalism and nationalsm acts as a ploy at the hands of so-called nationalists and patriotics to hoodwink the common people. This political ploy should be undestood and realised in a truly politcaly correct conviction.
It is not very clear what does nationalism actually mean for an individual. Is it to love a particular nation and to hate a particular nation or nations? When someone loves a particular nation, he has to love to hate all other nations en bloc. Love is such a blind thing! So you love your nation and hate mine. Is this a good proposition to propose one thing to dispose the other? The power-that-be has always parroted the idea of nationalism in close relation to patriotism this way or that way. This is a knee-jerking idea they cherish throughout their career of statesmanship. This is truly crafty enough to condone their every feat and features of evil designs.
Once you are smitten by faith and fashion of nationalism, you are called a true patriot. Patriotism comes hand in glove with nationalism and they are two sides of the same coin whatever value the coin is embedded with. They come handy to each other. When there is national crisis, you are offered to lay down your persoanl grievances and sufferings at the altar of patriotism and you are on a roll. Again, when your patriotism is at precarious stake, you have got to roll back on your nationalism and you get confused which way to roll backing in the end. This is the crux of the problem you face so far as your nationalism and patriotism are concerned.
In the fitness of things, it turns out that the powers-that-be and elites of the society are the dream merchants of nationalism and patriotism. They hawk these ideas to their citizens as being the cool customers of their dream merchandise. It is even more dangerous when it comes to war and rebellion. The citizens are driven to the point of jingoism by their plain skullduggery they are brainstormed in way they are prompted and even forced to side with them just to perpetuate the status quo. This is what they call nationalism or patriotism.
The paradigm of nationalism and nationalsm acts as a ploy at the hands of so-called nationalists and patriotics to hoodwink the common people. This political ploy should be undestood and realised in a truly politcaly correct conviction.
What is God : God's Number and Sex?
We know or at least we are led to believe to know that God exist. So as God exists, so we should know what God is. But do we really know? It is very astonishing that we never know whether God ever married. But first of all we have to know the exact sex of God. And there is one more problem. That is, whether there is or was more than one Gods in the whole universe. And some more pertinent questions and doubts can be raised for getting more enlightenment.
But who will answer to these questions. The preachers are busy and their doors are always kept bolted and shut off so that nobody can disturb their hibernations and their profound mission of attaining salvation. So, let the sleeping lions lie in their dens. We poor souls have got no other choice but to scratch our brains. Our poor souls tend to be diminishing while doing so. So, let it be so.
First thing first. In English God is masculine in gender (that is, sex. But can it not be common or neuter gender?) And singular in number. Okay, that is fine, so far so good. We have seen that God is morphed into plural beings by Gods and that is very common usage in religious and other books. That is to say that there are or were more than one God. In Hindu religion (if Hindu is accepted as a religion as such), there are many Gods and they are not at all shy of accepting many Gods at a time. In many other ancient religions and mythology, there are many Gods than one. They at least save our faces as in any other established religions the existence of many Gods are not accepted and believed although we have seen in many ancient literatures a plethora of Gods ruling the universe (or, is it their particular universes only?).
But barring Hindu religion all later religions discarded the idea of many Gods and all opted for one Super Power, one Supreme Being. So we can safely say that there are not many Gods to reckon with. Or, for arguments' sake we can say that there is only one God. So He/She is singular. Q.E.D. Now we can part with the first part of the problem. Now on to the next part of the problem which is what is/are or are/were the sex of the God/s?
We have seen that on the issue of God being single or multiple, the believers are divided in two camps. According to the belief of single God, God is male in sex and there being single God we can safely say that God never had been married. Then the question arises that the how come he did create man in his own image. There is no answer forthcoming from any quarter. In Hindu religion, Gods married Goddesses and they gave birth to many sons and daughters.
So, we are their inherited offsprings. But we are all not Hindus! Then the whole problem is back to square one. Are we born in His own images? Are we His prototypes? So, we are all Gods! Who says we are homo sapiens?
Let there be light!
But who will answer to these questions. The preachers are busy and their doors are always kept bolted and shut off so that nobody can disturb their hibernations and their profound mission of attaining salvation. So, let the sleeping lions lie in their dens. We poor souls have got no other choice but to scratch our brains. Our poor souls tend to be diminishing while doing so. So, let it be so.
First thing first. In English God is masculine in gender (that is, sex. But can it not be common or neuter gender?) And singular in number. Okay, that is fine, so far so good. We have seen that God is morphed into plural beings by Gods and that is very common usage in religious and other books. That is to say that there are or were more than one God. In Hindu religion (if Hindu is accepted as a religion as such), there are many Gods and they are not at all shy of accepting many Gods at a time. In many other ancient religions and mythology, there are many Gods than one. They at least save our faces as in any other established religions the existence of many Gods are not accepted and believed although we have seen in many ancient literatures a plethora of Gods ruling the universe (or, is it their particular universes only?).
But barring Hindu religion all later religions discarded the idea of many Gods and all opted for one Super Power, one Supreme Being. So we can safely say that there are not many Gods to reckon with. Or, for arguments' sake we can say that there is only one God. So He/She is singular. Q.E.D. Now we can part with the first part of the problem. Now on to the next part of the problem which is what is/are or are/were the sex of the God/s?
We have seen that on the issue of God being single or multiple, the believers are divided in two camps. According to the belief of single God, God is male in sex and there being single God we can safely say that God never had been married. Then the question arises that the how come he did create man in his own image. There is no answer forthcoming from any quarter. In Hindu religion, Gods married Goddesses and they gave birth to many sons and daughters.
So, we are their inherited offsprings. But we are all not Hindus! Then the whole problem is back to square one. Are we born in His own images? Are we His prototypes? So, we are all Gods! Who says we are homo sapiens?
Let there be light!
The World of Internet : Real or Virtual?
Once I asked a friend of mine whether he ever joins chat, blogs, discussion fora on the internet. Hearing me asking this, he shrugged off his broad shoulder and he affirmatively said, "No and never ever." "But why? Why are you so up in arms against internet culture?" I tried to pinch him seductively.
He shot back point blank at me. He said that he loved to live in the real world and never thought of living in the killing fields of virtual world as there is no or there shoild not be any perceptible reality in that so-called virtual world. He opined that virtual world is a stale world, a dirty cheap world. And a virtual world is like a world of nothingness. Why should we ever keep shy of the world of verdant splendour? Being there is akin to a feeling of belongingness. How can we afford to fight back the grim reality of belongingness just by overhauling it? Yes, it is a dirty cheap world. And there is no denying of the fact.
"A dirty cheap world? What do you mean?" I fired back.
"Yes, I mean what I say. It is not only very cheap, but dirty to the core. Enough is enough. There is nothing serious, nobody serious. It has corrupted and polluted the entire world culture and psyche. It is just teasing, appeasing and molly-cooddling our libido and that libido as it were is the summum bonnum of our existence. Examles are aplenty. This perversion is going on and on. It is doing more harm than good."
"But so many people are involed in this in so many ways. What is the bugbear as such?"
"The bugbear is cultural perversion. Nobody is serious about it and nothing is commited seriously. I've asked many people what they actually do on the internet. They could not answer convincingly. This so-called virtual world provides us with oodles of dry informations and datas. There is no objective reality. It is disastrous..."
I thought a while and kept on thinking. Is there no serious discussion? Everything is a storm over a breakfast tea? I do have my own options and reservations. Are those dry informations and datas not value-added? Can they not prompt us to churn objective reality out of this? Cheap they may be in some cases and dirty also in some other cases but the bottomline remains the same: it has come to stay, my friend agrees or not.
He shot back point blank at me. He said that he loved to live in the real world and never thought of living in the killing fields of virtual world as there is no or there shoild not be any perceptible reality in that so-called virtual world. He opined that virtual world is a stale world, a dirty cheap world. And a virtual world is like a world of nothingness. Why should we ever keep shy of the world of verdant splendour? Being there is akin to a feeling of belongingness. How can we afford to fight back the grim reality of belongingness just by overhauling it? Yes, it is a dirty cheap world. And there is no denying of the fact.
"A dirty cheap world? What do you mean?" I fired back.
"Yes, I mean what I say. It is not only very cheap, but dirty to the core. Enough is enough. There is nothing serious, nobody serious. It has corrupted and polluted the entire world culture and psyche. It is just teasing, appeasing and molly-cooddling our libido and that libido as it were is the summum bonnum of our existence. Examles are aplenty. This perversion is going on and on. It is doing more harm than good."
"But so many people are involed in this in so many ways. What is the bugbear as such?"
"The bugbear is cultural perversion. Nobody is serious about it and nothing is commited seriously. I've asked many people what they actually do on the internet. They could not answer convincingly. This so-called virtual world provides us with oodles of dry informations and datas. There is no objective reality. It is disastrous..."
I thought a while and kept on thinking. Is there no serious discussion? Everything is a storm over a breakfast tea? I do have my own options and reservations. Are those dry informations and datas not value-added? Can they not prompt us to churn objective reality out of this? Cheap they may be in some cases and dirty also in some other cases but the bottomline remains the same: it has come to stay, my friend agrees or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
