Sorry for the month long sabbatical, but who, other than me, is reading this blog anyway?
And all this time, I found more stuff to add to the discussion I had started the last time around!
Swami Vivekananda, who advocated the harmony of all religions, taught that although the concept of "chosen people" is not ultimately true, it is a stage of growth and evolution that many religions must go through before they reach the higher truth of oneness. Vivekananda explained:
Religions naturally believe in a Personal God who is purely anthropomorphic, who like a great potentate in this world is pleased with some and displeased with others. He is arbitrarily pleased with some people or races and showers blessings upon them. You will find that in almost every religion is the idea: "We are the favorites of God, and only by believing as we do, can you be taken into favor with Him." And, therefore, in the nature of things, religions are bound to fight and quarrel with each other.
Little wonder that he was chastised by the right wing American media for stating the same!
The Dalai Lama once said, when posed with a question as to when shall there be eternal peace, "As long as there is man there can never be eternal peace, but we can strive to achieve moments of peace in this eternal strife, and that should be the goal that mankind should work towards!" (This is not quoted verbatim, but this is the gist of what he said approximately.)
The glorification of war has found various sanctions and justifications in the course of time:
1.Economic: to feed the starving populace of the attacking nation
2.Religious: to spread the "real message" of God amongst "the infidels", to save "brethren of our religion" from the "oppression" of the non-believers, to "free the land that God chose for our people"
3.Social: to liberate and bring about social justice in a supposed tyrannical anarchy!
4.Sovereign: to expand the regal majesty of our head of state!
5.Commerce: to protect the overseas interests of our upcoming industries and trade routes!
6.Power: to project the power that the state wields over the nations far and beyond!
7.Civilization: to populate uncharted territory and civilize the "savage tribals" who would "apparently perish" but for the timely intervention of "the civilized."
8.Global Policing: the age old mantra: "for the greater good" and to maintain "peace."
9.Territorial integrity: to safeguard the nation from invaders and prevent secession!
But for the last reason mentioned, the consequences of war have always been disastrous for any side concerned!
War is not always a question of who is right, but who is left at the end! As Stalin had once said that history shall remember him as a benevolent man for he intended to write it!
Sitting in our living rooms in our cosy homes we can give countless reasons just and unjust for going to war but put yourself in the shoes of the soldier who is risking his life to safeguard our "interests" or for that matter his family or that of the opposing soldiers (I would rather not use the term enemy soldier!) and their families who lose their dear ones at the small flinch of a trigger; or the savage treatment meted out by the shell-shocked, war weary soldiers on the populace of the country they attack!
And yet, the populace would count the number of victories and the defeats in terms of statistics!
Stalin wasn't too far from the truth when he said,"the death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic!"
So numb have we become that there is no outrage at the mindless loss of human life; that war and war-games are now treated as a sport, what with the stupendous media coverage that it receives, the common man can enjoy the ghastly sights from the comforts of his living room while sipping on some ice cold beverage with buttered popcorn to whet his palate!
Given this sanction from the society as a whole, why do we then blame our leaders for leading us into a battle, when we as a populace have not uttered any word of dissent or disgust?
Here is where I ponder: Where has the religion of humanity gone amidst all the religions and factions that exist today?
'Schadenfreude'
Since times immemorial, the inherent nature of man has been to feel secure, gloat and find happiness in others' misfortune! And now they have a word for that!
One of the most poignant dialogues that I have heard comes from the movie As Good As It Gets, when Melvin Udal the character portrayed by Jack Nicholson exclaims:
".. and that's what makes it hard.
Not that you had it bad but being that pissed that so many had it good."
(This is an approximate version of what I heard in the movie!)
I guess that says it all, doesn't it?
Now for the expected torment that comes along with the other stuff that I have dished out:
Problem of the week!
(Now this one was conjured up as I was writing this piece above, so forgive me if it is not as polished; it is off the top of my head!)
(Now this one was conjured up as I was writing this piece above, so forgive me if it is not as polished; it is off the top of my head!)
You are an elderly gentleman! You have lived a life of contentment: a happy marriage, a good career, a good reputation, a good bank balance, a good wife, a good son (or daughter) who respects and loves you no end and who is a success in life as well! You are well respected, admired by your peers and have nothing more that you would rather want from life! And you love your son and you are truly proud of him in the good sense!
Everything sounds rosy, huh? Here is the treat:
You somehow, due to some concrete evidence that you stumble upon, find out that your son of 30 or so years is in fact not your own!
Now here are the questions:
1. Would you love your son any less? (Or would it be any different if it were a daughter?)
2.How would your son react when he finds this out? Would you let anybody find this out in the first place?
3. What would your response be to his (or her) reaction?
2.How would your son react when he finds this out? Would you let anybody find this out in the first place?
3. What would your response be to his (or her) reaction?
4. Scenario 1: And for one brief period of foolishness or passion or what you will, say your wife was disloyal or so it seems! You confront your wife, and she admits to one brief physical encounter in her youth, apologizes earnestly for that and yet she professes her undying love and loyalty to you (and you haven't seen or heard anything to suggest otherwise in these 4 or so decades of wedded bliss), how would you react?
5. Scenario 2: Your wife has been loyal and has never cheated, but say there was a mix-up in the nursery where your kid was born and you ended up having the wrong baby and you had no clue for all these 3 or so decades!
a. Would you accept fate and go along with the hand dealt to you?
b. Would you seek out your "real" offspring? And/or sue the medical center (where the baby was born) in the process and open a whole can of worms?
c. Or would you be content in the fact that you have raised someone else's baby as your own, and, that it is only natural to have your true offspring raised by someone else; and hence do nothing to spoil the situation for the true offspring that you have never met? Would you let status quo remain for that offspring and not spoil his ideal family?
