Yogi :The most intelligent guy!!

All human pursuits are directed towards one thing and only one thing: happiness. The terms used to explain it might vary but the essential meaning remains the same. Some may term it as happiness, some as joy, some as bliss and some as ecstasy and so on. Ecstasy is just a more heightened state of happiness.

Some might say “not everyone is seeing their own happiness but they are working for others selflessly”. There are no selfless acts at all. All acts are selfish. If you take the self as the central point, for some the circumference might circle around themselves and their family, for some their community and for some, their nation. So the difference between one person and the other person lies in the circumference around the self. But essentially it is springing from or directed towards the self.

People have tried different ways of achieving happiness and the innovation for more methods continues. People have tried drugs; people have tried sex, yearned for success, power; all in the same pursuit. They have achieved it too. Thus achieved success is ephemeral. Else, people should have stopped looking for happiness. They are deprived of it therefore the search is always on. We search for the things which we don’t have.

All are capable of happiness but the problem is in the sustainability of it. People indulge in sex and feel great for some time and after sometime they are back to square one. People in search of happiness indulge in drugs and feel great for sometime (some drugs expands the consciousness) but again when they fall back, they return with a terrible feeling.

Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev of Isha Foundation articulates it beautifully through a story:

A pheasant and a bull were together in a meadow. The pheasant was on the bull’s back picking ticks as the bull grazed. The pheasant looked at the towering tree in front of him, sighed and said nostalgically,

“When I was young and strong, I could fly to the top of the tree.”

The bull nonchalantly said “You can still do it, just eat my dung for a week. “

The pheasant shrugged and said “what non-sense”.

The bull persisted and said “just try it, the whole humanity is on it”.

The pheasant reluctantly ate some. The very next day, much to his glee, he could fly to the first branch. A week later, as promised he was on the top of the tree. He crowed in delight, a farmer seated on the verandah of his house, saw this fat pheasant crowing, got his gun and shot him to the ground for a meal.

The moral of the story is, “sometimes even bullshit can take you to the top but it never lets you stay there.”!!

Adding to the ephemeral nature of these things, they are not good for the human system too. Indulging in alcohol or drugs can give pleasures for some time, but in a long run they are detrimental to the system (body and mind both). Now contrast this with the attitude of Yogi. A yogi is also in pursuit of happiness but more of a permanent one, the one that he can behold for a long term. The system of yoga that the yogi applies doesn’t hamper mind or body but instead enhances them.

If you look at some yogis, they will be disinterested in the things that interests most of us. There’s nothing wrong with that. They have graduated to finer states of things. As kids we treasured toys but now we never bother for them. They are nothing for us now because we have found they no more hold our interests. In the same way once someone graduates to finer things the base things appear meaningless.

The path of yoga that the yogi follows bypasses many unwanted steps for achieving permanent state of bliss. So it saves enormous amounts of time and effort. When each one of us is traveling in an Ambassador car, the yogi has learnt to use the F1 car. He’s put himself on a fast track. When the stated goal is same for all, when somebody is achieving swiftly than others without damaging others or himself, he should be a very efficient and intelligent person. These things make me to call the yogi the most intelligent person.

Secularism, its Indian version & Saffron terror

There are many corrupted words amidst us. Some of them are god, love, soul etc. People have misused these words so much that they have deviated from their original meaning long long ago. Whenever people use these words you can be assured that they are using them in the wrong sense in most of the cases. We have one more word in India which is more corrupted than any other words and the word is secularism. Even though every party and ‘intellectuals’, journalists talk about it, they don’t have a clue about it whatsoever.

There is an immense need today to define secularism than ever because of its rampant misuse. Just an example: If you see the political parties most of them call themselves secular and almost all unequivocally maintain BJP as a communal party. In fact, there is no party which is absolutely secular in this nation. BJP tries to woo the majority vote bank. The rest of the parties try to woo the minorities eyeing on their vote bank and shamelessly call themselves secular. If BJP is communal then rest of the parties are communal too. But they act on the garb of secularism.

If we observe the appeasement policy of the political parties and the 'secular' media, we clearly can infer they will woo only the majority among the minorities but not the real minorities. That is to say, if there is a conflict between the Sikhs and the Muslims, you can be sure that they take the side of Muslims even though Sikhs are the real minorities compared to the Muslims. The real minorities in India are Parsees, Jains, Buddhists. But the media portrays Muslims and Christians as the only two minorities. Politicians don't have any problems with that because there is where their vote bank lies.

Secularism in the real sense should mean there should not be any kinds of discrimination whatsoever based on caste, religion and sex. But does the situation in India echo this fundamental characteristic of secularism? The answer is no. There is obvious deviation from the real secularist principles. Or to put it in a better way, India was never a secular republic in the real sense like say the U.S. In the U.S, it doesn’t matter what religion, race, or sex the person belongs to, he would have equal opportunity in all the spheres. Competence and ability are the only criteria for ascendance in any fields. Unfortunately, secularism exists just as a word in India. Or to say it in a better way, secularism is just a circumlocution of minorityism. When media claims it has championed secularism, you can be sure that it has championed minorityism.

K.M. Munshi had warned about this over fifty years ago:

"If, however, the misuse of this word 'secularism' continues ... if, every time there is an inter-communal conflict, the majority is blamed regardless of the merits of the question... the springs of traditional tolerance will dry up. While the majority exercises patience and tolerance, the minorities should adjust themselves to the majority. Otherwise the future is uncertain and an explosion cannot be avoided."

If you see the recent trends and happening in the country Munshi’s words appear prophetic. The latest example is the communal violence bill that the government is mooting to pass. According to the bill, when any communal violence occurs, no matter who instigated it, the majority will always be the culprit. If the bill is passed, it will surely have disastrous consequences in the long run. Though, most of the times majority has exercised tolerance, it can’t be expected till perpetuity when their own existence is at stake.

Discrimination is rampant in India based on the religion and caste. Somehow, the appeasement of religious minorities has become official principle of most of the political parties. The trend has reached dangerous levels where people are ready to compromise on national security just to appease some section of society. If the same trend continues, the doomsday for India is not far away. Someone had put it well “In a democratic polity the power rests with the majority with due protection of the minority interests. But in India this principle has been turned on its head by rampant minorityism. The wishes and feelings of majority can be trampled underfoot and ignored with impunity in the secure knowledge that the minority vote banks will deliver power to the ones who most stridently champion their cause. The majority because of division in its ranks can do little but wring its hands in dismay”.

About the caste politics: It is impossible to do politics in India for people who don’t understand caste equations. It has percolated at all levels of governance. The nation clearly discriminates people based on caste. None would have counted the kinds of reservation that exists in this country. India is perhaps the only nation where many group of people wants desperately to remain backward. There is a huge competition to remain backwards. Some expedient politicos like Mayawati and the likes have made caste, religion based reservation their trump cards.

Now nowhere existing saffron terror is imminent

In one of the press conferences the then home minister Chidambaram said that the saffron terror was more dangerous than any forms of terror. There was one incidence then in Malegaon (in which some Hindus were accused of an act of terror) which prompted him to give such ludicrous remark. One can be sure that even thousand such incidences by the Islamist terrorists would not have prompted the ‘secular’ person like him to talk about the green terror which was more global than any kinds of terror.

Rahul Gandhi who is a novice in some fundamentals of administration and has got to the place not by any competence but by pure nepotism was reported voicing the same opinion of that of Chidambaram (Wikileaks reports). If someone asked both these ‘intelligent’ people to explain the statement made, they wouldn’t surely be having any answers. It was obviously done to appease some section of people and also to satiate the hunger of the ‘secular’ media of India which was waiting for this.

When Malegoan blasts happened, when it was said that for the very first time an act of terrorism happened for Hindutva ideology (at least it was reported so), it really made some sections of people extremely happy. It made many pseudo-secular politicians, ‘sickular’ media, ‘intellectuals’ very happy. The reason is simple. Most of the terrorist acts in India happened for two ideologies: Either Islamic or Marxist. So, whenever people talked about the Islamic fundamentalism the ‘great’ media resorted to same old set of rhetoric ‘Terrorism has no religion’, ‘Terrorism has more socio-politico-economic causes than religions ones’ and the likes. But now they’d found a new defense in the form of Hindutva terror (though the case is still in the court). The alacrity that they showed in this case, had they showed for the right causes, they would have brought some awareness among people and done something good for the nation. The same people who said ‘terrorism has no religion’ did not shy away attributing this lone case to ‘saffron’ and thus to Hindutva ideology. This is a clear display of double standards and nothing short of intellectual prostitution. Most of these media are the brothels in which the person who has paid (in some form) gets the chance to screw whatever he wants. The thing that always gets screwed is the truth.

Now Hindus (those who are not deluded by some tacky ideology) are beginning to understand that no leader or political parties can protect their interests. Their great nation, culture are under attack from within and without. Series of (global) conspiracies are in line for them. They are on their own and can rely on none. They are being killed like animals by Islamic religious fanatics or by Marxist ideological fanatics. Their tolerance is being seen as a weakness, not as a virtue. It is plain insanity to clamor for tolerance when their very existence is at stake. The great Sikh guru Gobind Singhji said it rightly “When all means of redressing a wrong have failed, it is both just and righteous to unsheathe the sword”!!

My Books Review: November '11

1) Notes from the underground – This is the work of Russian writer, philosopher Fyodor Dostoevsky. This is like a confession and rationalization made by the person about the past. When a person examines one’s life and if he is honest enough in examination he would find many feelings, deeds considered to be amoral been done. But it requires courage to accept those. Most of the times, we don’t deceive others but we deceive ourselves. This is an evaluation of the past and rationalization of some mistakes. The book is divided into two parts: the first part of the book is completely a monologue; the second part of the book is about his interactions with the society. This novel explores various emotions of humans like love, greed, jealousy, wrath, self-hate etc. It is said that Dostoevsky’s character in this novel is one of the greatest anti-heroes ever to be created and this work is perhaps the earliest work about existentialism. 

2) Quite honestly – This is a short novel written by the British author John Mortimer. It is a story of young girl Lucy Purefoy who has the desire of dong something good to the society. She joins the department which tries to reform and relocate the criminals out of the prison and bring them back to normal life. During such assignments, she befriends a criminal named Terry and after sometime she falls in love with the criminal. When asked why he was involved in crimes, Terry replies that he wanted to have the thrill of burglary rather than the money involved. To share the feeling with her love Terry, She plans to steal a very expensive painting along with two more. But while doing so she gets caught and lands up in prison. What happens next forms the later part of the story. 

This is an ordinary novel with ordinary tale, a few twists here & there and an unexpected ending.