Sunday, May 31, 2015

Gita: Not Harf-e-Aakhir

Premchand, in the preface of his Karbala, urges Hindus to read about Islam. That's funny because Hindus don't read much. And I am talking about the creme de la creme of them who are nothing but degree-holding clerks. It's another matter that these smug dudes have opinion about everything.

One of these progressive dude butted in sometime back claiming that both Koran and Gita urge to fight. At the same time these universal equalizers maintain that all religions teach peace and everybody loves peace etc. I am least interested in wasting a single word on these overweight retards anymore. But I do want to contrast Gita with that death manual, because the comparison is stupid at the first place.

This post is not going to be a theological in nature. There are experts for that. I will talk about something else.

The first thing that struck me about Gita is this - in the context of Mahabharata, Gita just happens to happen. Krishna and Arjun were friends for years, and they were not very far from each other. But Krishna never preached him. In fact, Krishna never preached anyone in the whole epic. Gita is not a sermon; it's just an answer to a question, and this answer is given only to him who asks the question. Not before, not elsewhere, not to anyone else! Krishna might not have said a word otherwise. And that's remarkable.

Coming to warmongering, the language of Gita is unmistakably contextual not only to the story but also to the specific situation in the story. And that must not be overlooked in its interpretations because it's a specific answer to a specific question instead of a general sermon by a prophet. It's entirely another matter that the philosophy of Gita has been proved to transcend contexts like nothing else.

Also, Gita highlights the importance of seeking and asking questions and reasoning as per the age old traditions of the Upanishads, which is the defining characteristic of Dharma (or Hinduism). On the other hand, that death manual is nothing but a series of unsolicited sermons that's forced upon all and sundry. It has nothing to do with seeking and asking questions. In fact, it positively forbids questions and demands absolute faith and complete submission without any hint of a doubt. And that too from everybody, everywhere, all the time! 

The second thing about Gita that makes the comparison look what it is - silly - is the fact that your faith or lack of faith in Gita and/or Krishna has no bearing on your Dharma. You stay a Hindu even if you know nothing about Gita. You stay a Hindu even if you accept Gita in parts. You stay a Hindu even if you reject Gita completely.

Here are some facts that must be understood. Hindus are not people of any book or followers of any prophet. They have no commandments or dogma. They need not worship God let alone idols. There is no concept of unbelievers or hell. Nobody asks them to evangelize/proselytize or wage holy wars. And if someone does, they are free to ignore. There is nothing conditional or organized in Dharma which is mistaken as just another religion for lack of corresponding idea in the West. What Hindus share in common is a tradition of quest, a legacy of scientific pursuit of spirit, and a profound ignorance about themselves. That's why they are bullied by brutes.

Anyway, unless it's factually wrong and misleading, we Hindus are least scared of criticism, even rejection, no matter how severe it is. But reject a single verse of that manual and you reject the touchy-feely prophet and his fear-based death cult. You turn guilty of apostasy, which is an unforgivable crime punishable by death. 

Need I contrast anymore?

Friday, May 29, 2015

Monotheism --> Totalitarianism and Violence

One is often disturbed by widespread violence that is raging in the world. Our history, though abridged and sanitized, is soaked in blood. And one wants this violence to stop once and for all. But wishful thinking is non-thinking.

Thinking about it, it’s apparent that one of the major reasons behind violence has been the belief that truth is singular. Consequently, one version becomes gospel or the last word and the rest becomes untruth, evil, and worth fighting against. You cannot have a truly plural society with a singular truth. Tolerance is tense by its definition.

All Abrahamic religions believe that there is one and only one God and that God happens to be their God. Other God or other Gods and their worshippers deserve to be fought against. That’s the very fundamental, not mere fringe, of their faith, and of their culture. This belief not only justifies aggression but also makes a virtue out of it. You get the moral license to intrude, in the name of evangelism or jihad. 

The singularity of truth is seen in non-theological Western constructs like Communism that demands nothing less than complete revolution. No wonder the rise of communism is accompanied by complete destruction and countless deaths. It hates everything lock stock and barrel, and allies with all anti-national and counter-cultural forces to meet its delusional and misleading ends. No wonder commies are pally with jihadi terrorists and evangelists in India and elsewhere.

In short, war is the logical conclusion of monotheism and subsequent political systems. Monotheism is religious monopoly, and totalitarian by its very nature, manifested in inquisition, jihad, communism, capitalism, fascism etc. Only polytheistic societies could foster a worldview mature enough to welcome individualism and plurality. Only polytheistic societies could have peace, if they are not destroyed by monotheistic fanatics. All gods, invisible or visible, should be allowed to live in heaven with all their followers and unfollowers on earth in peace.

The bottom-line is this – one must never intrude into other's house. Your freedom ends where his nose begins, even if his nose is unsightly. And this is true not just physically. “No God but our God” is a seed of violence. Nothing decent could come out of it. It’s medieval and it must be relegated to the nearest garbage bin where it belongs.

We must remember that non-violence is the only sensible macro-political strategy in an age when technology could amplify madness to infernal levels.

For MacBastards

Many people claim that India was Made in England. India as we know today never existed before 1947 and wouldn’t have existed without the Independence of India Act.

I have problems with this nonsense. Two reasons, at least. 

First, these morons are confused between nation and nation-state. They cannot comprehend the concept of nation and differentiate it from nation-state. Their imagination doesn't go beyond boundaries and custom offices. As if nations never existed before nation-states. Such idiocy is common among those who believe in the singularity of truth – all nations must conform to one gold (or global, which is euphemism for Western) standard definition. Better believe their singular God or burn in hell! Doesn't matter if the word “India” has been in usage even before the world was found to be round, when or even before England was in its diapers! Perhaps the India Marco Polo and many others referred to in their travelogues existed on Mars. “East India Company”? Mahabharata? Well, it might have referred to something else, because India didn't exist then, right? India was a figment of world's imagination, a ghost. Well, I rest my case.

Second, these slavish bootlickers don’t miss any chance to lick boots of their imperial masters. They are dream poodles of Macaulay, these clerks who can get the work done but cannot think. In fact, they have no idea what thinking means. Get a pack of popcorn and ask them what thinking feels like. Out of syllabus for them. These walking colonies are actually thankful to Brit bastards for railways! Oh yeah, they brought it for you! And Gandhi freed Pakistan and Indians have iPhones because India is an American colony.

Look you commie douchebag - here is a sad joke, see if you can even understand.

In 1492, Columbus discovered America.

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

wannabeing

Change is the only constant in the changing world. We change around us, and within us. Without change, there would be no concept of consciousness. In short, we pretty much know what change is.

So there is no point talking about it. I want to explore another word – growth – because A. it’s an everyday currency and B. it’s tricky, especially since it’s liable to be confused with wannabeing.

So how does a wannabe know that he is just wannabeing and not growing? Well, a wannabe wouldn’t care in the first place. Others have no confusion anyway. How does it matter then! Leave it.

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

The Taste of Sweet

Sweet has two tastes, at least. It tastes one way to those who get to eat it.  And it tastes quite differently to those who don’t get to eat it. It might have another taste for those who are fed or overfed against their wishes, and we can talk about aftertaste etc. but let’s not get too technical about it.

The question is – which taste is the right taste of sweet? And who can describe it – one who got to eat it or one who didn’t? Or both?

The taste of one sweet might be different from the taste of another sweet. But the taste of sweetlessness doesn’t change; sweetlessness tastes the same no matter what the sweet is. The taste of want and unfulfillment is the same.

The question comes back – could the taste of unfulfilled desire (to eat sweet) be one of the valid tastes (of sweet)?


Alas! One knows the price; other knows the value.

Monday, May 18, 2015

99C

By the time I understand, it changes. No matter how much I try to catch up, I find myself lagging. I don't ever arrive, and I don't even give up and relax. I keep shifting from one position of stupidity to another. 

I am in dark. I know that I don't know enough. At the same time, I also feel that I know much more than I would like to. I would rather not know things that I know, for they are painful and useless. I was supposed to be stupid, I turned myself into a cynic.

But I cannot go back. Time takes no U-turns. It pokes me from behind and pushes me forward. I have to keep running, hoping for some magic or miracle. After all, beyond a point, you cannot heat water; it turns into stream and flies away. Away from your cruel contraptions.

Halal

Arabia, about 1500 years back. Mohammed and his followers were in do-or-die conflict with rest of the population. 

The war, as usual, was being fought at every level, in every corner, including the market. This is what this post is about. This post is about economic terrorism.

Near about 99% population would have been non-vegetarian in the deserts of Arabia in the times of Mohammed. And food and animal farming would have been one of the predominant sectors of the economy. 

Given that, if one managed to capture the supply side of the food industry, the production of meat, he would pretty much capture the economy by the scruff of its neck. 

The question was how to effect this economic coup. How do you make your people take the war to their home and hearth, without being ugly naked about it? Let's devise a strategy that sounds convincing; let's Allah reveal something technical this time.

And lo! you have halal, which means that the animal will be slaughtered only in the name of Muslim God by chanting Allah-o-Akbar, implying that only Ummah would control the production of meat and dominate the food industry. Halal is a certificate not just to stamp food or even its means of production but the people who could produce it - what's allowed (or halal) to be consumed could only be produced by those who are allowed to perform the necessary ritual. Others could shut their shop and go home.

In other words, halal is nothing but an economic sanction on non-Muslims in order to establish a monopoly in food market. It means nothing else! Rest is smokescreen. It was genius of an innovation, evil but effective. Combine this with jizya (tax for protection), and you wreak a veritable holocaust on kuffar or dhimmis, without spilling a single drop of blood.

The only question now is - how important is understanding halal today in the globalized economy? Well, I would rather you reach your own conclusion. But when one steps into a Nepalese restaurant in downtown San Francisco and reads "We Serve Halal Meat Only", one cannot help but wonder.