Most of you reading this note have just turned twenty or will be touching that age milestone in some time. Well, ageing is not an achievement, but to be honest it feels good. It feels nice when I think that I will be completing the initial 2 decades of my life. But still I am of the opinion that age is just a number, maturity of mind is the thing that really matters. I have had lengthy debates with many of my friends on the correlation between age and maturity. I see people in their 40s, 50s and even in their 60s who at times act really immaturely, who have blanketed their juvenility under their aged bag of bones. According to my philosophy, for an average mind, maturity is directly proportional to experiences. If a person at 15 years of age has seen enough, or has gathered experiences at a rate much faster than any of his peers, he is bound to mature faster. He can easily be more mature than any 30 year old person. To all this I would like to add another aspect, it is scientifically known that the human brain is a dynamic organ. Although, the average human brain reaches its full adult weight by the age of 21, its development depends on person to person.Some can fasten it by providing it all the circumstances, others can not do so and let life do things the natural way.
Well, I myself have matured tremendously in past three years. I have gathered experiences at a much faster rate, though most of the times it wasn’t me who was directly involved, I was merely an observer, and believe me, I am a great observer. Since I was 16 years old, I have developed, adopted, thrown off philosophies, only to form some new ones. The experiences gave rise to philosophies, which piled up onto each other like bricks to form an ever rising building, a potential skyscraper. Some bricks fell off in the process, but it’s been a happy and satisfying process. And of course, The Joker, Tyler Durden, Bill Hicks, Vivekananda, Freud, Nietzsche, Che, Chanakya and others have helped to cement those bricks primarily through the World Wide Web.
Okay, enough said. Now, even if you don’t care I would share one of those philosophies here. Even if you haven’t read pretty much of the above stuff, please take 30 seconds to read the following lines. A few months ago, I read a quote by Nietzsche, which I even shared on Facebook. It is as follows- “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.” This quote resonated with my scheme of thinking. The biggest problem, the source of all the feuds, battles and wars is that nobody is completely wrong. Among two feuding persons (or viewpoints), both of them are completely or partly right. The real cause of the fight is that none of them tries to understand or analyze the other person’s viewpoint. If they would have spent two minutes, to figure out the real circumstances of the person’s actions, and what would have been their course of actions had they been in that person’s place, the fight would not have taken place in the first place. And after all we are human beings, we are bound to make mistakes (coming to the term ‘mistake’, I have always felt it’s a relative term), so we should learn to accept mistakes (ours and others’).
I have many more philosophies but I can’t always wire my feelings into words, so I fear ending up sending the wrong message. So till, I figure out ways to write good and meaningful sentences out of philosophies, I sign off.
Thank you, for reading (even if you just read the first two lines) this lengthy and unorganized note.
Aditya
(Avoiding fights, since 1991)
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Friday, April 8, 2011
Spirituality and God: What they said, what I thought.....
Spirituality for me is a never ending process, almost anything you learn, anything you experience catalyzes your spiritual evolution. I have had lengthy talks and debates with many of my friends on Spirituality, God, religion and all other related topics, and the following is an observatory account of all the philosophies I have acquired during the first 20 years of my life.
Since early childhood I had been advised by my elders to offer prayers in temple, pray to God, fold hands in front of religious statues, and was warned that God might punish me on my misdeed if I did not do so. Even then I had kind of a rebellious demeanor. I used to wonder why this God wanted everybody to praise him. I remember once when my mother told me that God is the universal parent, the mother and father to all living beings on earth, and therefore I should thank God for my existence, and pray to him daily, I then promptly challenged this analogy by saying that no parents had ever punished their child for not greeting them, no parents ever want to be daily thanked by their kids for bringing them up.
As I grew older I was told that God loves you, God loves everybody, and God only wants love in return. I was again confused at this notion, I couldn't quite understand that how could one love somebody whom he hasn't seen, experienced, and he's isn't even sure of his presence.
I then heard about spirituality, this was the most pleasing concept I had ever known. But then I heard people talking about spirituality, some called it the theory linking man to God, some called it science, some used the term 'inner engineering' some used an array of similar extravagant adjectives. All talked fantastically about the most magnificent of things soul, universe, god, meditation etc. but no body could answer the basic question as to what is the practical approach as far as a common person is concerned. How should an average human induce spirituality in his day to day life? What practically should be the initial steps to what everybody calls as 'spiritual enlightenment'?
I learn about meditation, I tried it, I felt relaxed, I thought of it purely as a mind relaxing mechanism. But when they linked it to God and spirituality I was again confused. I could really not get the link between meditation, God and spirituality. I heard that meditation is the path to get the ultimate answers, the solution to all spiritual challenges, the mechanism to ultimately be united with God. I superficially accepted all this, but the reasoning and explanations I got, were all vague and absurd.
I was perplexed at the mysticism surrounding God and spirituality. I met 'neo-spiritualists' who advocated the notion that spirituality is nothing but a science. If so, then why isn't there one absolute theory regarding God and spirituality. If spirituality is really a science, then why does everybody supplies his own hypothesizes. Why do spiritualists sound more like theologists and want 'belief' to be the ultimate factor? They say, you got to have belief all explanations will follow thereafter. I ask, isn't it the opposite way with science, first you have explanations and then people believe your concepts. 'Why should I believe?' is the ultimate question.
These are some of the basic questions my mind challenges me with whenever I think about spirituality. I hope someone, sometime can shed a light and clear at least some of the doubts.
Since early childhood I had been advised by my elders to offer prayers in temple, pray to God, fold hands in front of religious statues, and was warned that God might punish me on my misdeed if I did not do so. Even then I had kind of a rebellious demeanor. I used to wonder why this God wanted everybody to praise him. I remember once when my mother told me that God is the universal parent, the mother and father to all living beings on earth, and therefore I should thank God for my existence, and pray to him daily, I then promptly challenged this analogy by saying that no parents had ever punished their child for not greeting them, no parents ever want to be daily thanked by their kids for bringing them up.
As I grew older I was told that God loves you, God loves everybody, and God only wants love in return. I was again confused at this notion, I couldn't quite understand that how could one love somebody whom he hasn't seen, experienced, and he's isn't even sure of his presence.
I then heard about spirituality, this was the most pleasing concept I had ever known. But then I heard people talking about spirituality, some called it the theory linking man to God, some called it science, some used the term 'inner engineering' some used an array of similar extravagant adjectives. All talked fantastically about the most magnificent of things soul, universe, god, meditation etc. but no body could answer the basic question as to what is the practical approach as far as a common person is concerned. How should an average human induce spirituality in his day to day life? What practically should be the initial steps to what everybody calls as 'spiritual enlightenment'?
I learn about meditation, I tried it, I felt relaxed, I thought of it purely as a mind relaxing mechanism. But when they linked it to God and spirituality I was again confused. I could really not get the link between meditation, God and spirituality. I heard that meditation is the path to get the ultimate answers, the solution to all spiritual challenges, the mechanism to ultimately be united with God. I superficially accepted all this, but the reasoning and explanations I got, were all vague and absurd.
I was perplexed at the mysticism surrounding God and spirituality. I met 'neo-spiritualists' who advocated the notion that spirituality is nothing but a science. If so, then why isn't there one absolute theory regarding God and spirituality. If spirituality is really a science, then why does everybody supplies his own hypothesizes. Why do spiritualists sound more like theologists and want 'belief' to be the ultimate factor? They say, you got to have belief all explanations will follow thereafter. I ask, isn't it the opposite way with science, first you have explanations and then people believe your concepts. 'Why should I believe?' is the ultimate question.
These are some of the basic questions my mind challenges me with whenever I think about spirituality. I hope someone, sometime can shed a light and clear at least some of the doubts.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Republic Day: A Lowdown
(Written on 26th January 2011.)
I purposely sit to write this insignificant note an hour before the end of another insignificant day. My eligibility to call this day (26 January 2011) insignificant comes from the virtue that I am not drenched in any false and hypocritical sense of patriotism , unlike 99% of Indians (more aptly, the people residing in India, a country in South Asia, which is also the seventh-largest country by geographical area, the second-most populous country with over 1.2 billion people, and the most populous 'democracy' in the world.).
So what's so special about this day 26th January?
As far as I know, this was the day in 1950 when the Constitution of India came into force. So what's special about that? Most of the features of the constitution were mere copied from the constitution of other countries. Indian Constitution was largely a copy of British constitution with minor changes. The European educated congress leadership could never study the country in its depth to craft an appropriate constitution. Even after copying they could only draft such a poor constitution which has had around 100 amendments till date.
So what's there to be proud of as far as this day is concerned?
Okay 26th January kept aside, let's switch over to 15th August.
Well, as far as my intellectual senses are concerned I would not hesitate terming this as another insignificant day.
As far as I have read, Indian Independence was primarily the result of the 1945 general elections in England in which the Britishers who had long suffered during the World War 2 ousted Winston Churchill and elected Clement Attlee on the condition that Britain would stop imperialism and free all its colonies. And thus all African and Asian colonies of Britain were made independent. Though I will not undermine the efforts of Indian revolutionaries, but their efforts were not unidirectional and were diluted because they never had much public support because of the 'non-violence' wave that had hit India at that time. Now this leads to a question, which world revolution ever succeeded without resorting to violence? Common Sense, India was being non-violent, India was at peace, this would have been the ideal conditions for the Britishers to continue ruling the country for another 150 years at least hadn't there been any world war.In fact, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose was an intelligent planner, and he was the biggest threat ever to the Britishers in any of their colonies. He had assimilated support from Japs and Germans and had built a powerful army to resist the Britishers.
Coming now to the British rule, well it wasn't really as horrific as it is projected. In fact the ordinary Indian citizen was much more happy and satisfied in those day than he is now. Don't believe me? Go ask your grandparents. Secondly, Before the British set foot on India, this place was a cluster of kingdoms with small princes, who were too weak. It were the Britishers in fact who united the Indian subcontinent. If there was no British invasion, the current subcontinent would have been a bunch of small nations. These states, which we presently have would have been independent small countries(or maybe kingdoms), frequently quarreling among themselves for resources.
I know I am right on all of the above data, because I am damn sure that I was a much better student of history than any of you(if any) reading this stuff.
I won't talk about the third National holiday. I might already have raised a few eyebrows.
As to why have I written all this crap,
1. I had nothing better to do, I have files to be downloaded through torrents, so the Internet is slow( I know MTNL sucks too, but don't expect a note from me on MTNL). I recently had my computer formatted, so no games too.
2. I was irritated by all the 'patriotic' status updates and smses.
3. I wanted to feel drowsy after typing such a long note.
4.I HATE HYPOCRISY.
I purposely sit to write this insignificant note an hour before the end of another insignificant day. My eligibility to call this day (26 January 2011) insignificant comes from the virtue that I am not drenched in any false and hypocritical sense of patriotism , unlike 99% of Indians (more aptly, the people residing in India, a country in South Asia, which is also the seventh-largest country by geographical area, the second-most populous country with over 1.2 billion people, and the most populous 'democracy' in the world.).
So what's so special about this day 26th January?
As far as I know, this was the day in 1950 when the Constitution of India came into force. So what's special about that? Most of the features of the constitution were mere copied from the constitution of other countries. Indian Constitution was largely a copy of British constitution with minor changes. The European educated congress leadership could never study the country in its depth to craft an appropriate constitution. Even after copying they could only draft such a poor constitution which has had around 100 amendments till date.
So what's there to be proud of as far as this day is concerned?
Okay 26th January kept aside, let's switch over to 15th August.
Well, as far as my intellectual senses are concerned I would not hesitate terming this as another insignificant day.
As far as I have read, Indian Independence was primarily the result of the 1945 general elections in England in which the Britishers who had long suffered during the World War 2 ousted Winston Churchill and elected Clement Attlee on the condition that Britain would stop imperialism and free all its colonies. And thus all African and Asian colonies of Britain were made independent. Though I will not undermine the efforts of Indian revolutionaries, but their efforts were not unidirectional and were diluted because they never had much public support because of the 'non-violence' wave that had hit India at that time. Now this leads to a question, which world revolution ever succeeded without resorting to violence? Common Sense, India was being non-violent, India was at peace, this would have been the ideal conditions for the Britishers to continue ruling the country for another 150 years at least hadn't there been any world war.In fact, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose was an intelligent planner, and he was the biggest threat ever to the Britishers in any of their colonies. He had assimilated support from Japs and Germans and had built a powerful army to resist the Britishers.
Coming now to the British rule, well it wasn't really as horrific as it is projected. In fact the ordinary Indian citizen was much more happy and satisfied in those day than he is now. Don't believe me? Go ask your grandparents. Secondly, Before the British set foot on India, this place was a cluster of kingdoms with small princes, who were too weak. It were the Britishers in fact who united the Indian subcontinent. If there was no British invasion, the current subcontinent would have been a bunch of small nations. These states, which we presently have would have been independent small countries(or maybe kingdoms), frequently quarreling among themselves for resources.
I know I am right on all of the above data, because I am damn sure that I was a much better student of history than any of you(if any) reading this stuff.
I won't talk about the third National holiday. I might already have raised a few eyebrows.
As to why have I written all this crap,
1. I had nothing better to do, I have files to be downloaded through torrents, so the Internet is slow( I know MTNL sucks too, but don't expect a note from me on MTNL). I recently had my computer formatted, so no games too.
2. I was irritated by all the 'patriotic' status updates and smses.
3. I wanted to feel drowsy after typing such a long note.
4.I HATE HYPOCRISY.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)