Do you know Beethoven? Reply

Based on real incident, perhaps in 2006, published on this website, Feb, 2011.


I hate proselytizers. I miss my bus because of them and I can’t sleep because they knock on my doors .

This really happened.

P: Hi bro

M: hey

P: You heard Beethoven?

M: No
(I am thinking one part of that no is, yes)

P: He played Piano long long ago
(No wonder, I didn’t hear him) More…

The problem of eating beef. Reply

Is eating beef an act which is so morally repugnant that it can take lives? We wouldn’t imagine such with an ideally and intellectually sensitive human society. But we don’t, we live in communities which does not care so much about what it can infer as “other’s” ways. Lets not get ourselves embroiled, to believe that, thats a superfluous statement.

One would argue, we do care about others values and culture and others ways of looking at things and at a grosser level others comfort in riding a public transport, others availability and unavailability in attending to us for what we need them for.

But, I am talking about “others” as a mark of identification and not an immediately concocted response, to deal with a social situation.

At a deeper level, we often transgress, into interfering with others ways, simply because, we identify them as ‘others’. We deliberately create a ruckus, about ‘issues’, simply because, the issues do not affect us the way we perceive it affects others.

Its dishonesty and its violence. Read a short article here why I think “dishonesty is violence”.

We gang up on others and create false notions of vulnerability and mark others as adverse, simply because we have deep prejudices of defining our roles and identifications, as being markedly different, from what we confer onto those, that would not fit into such roles.

One of the determinant, in delving into making a demarcation of what constitutes ‘others’, is the idea of proving superiority. And its an age old problem, but more than that it prevails in today’s communities, in a way it would not let us make progress as humans. More…

What to say and what not to say, according to Buddhism Reply

From Foundation texts of Buddhism.
Abhaya Sutta and
Samaññaphala Sutta etc

As I summarize (6 sentences into 1, possible)

Most of the speech — including bitter truth, can only be said if they are beneficial and only if they are said with the right sense of time.

I am making it concise, from whats appended still below;
unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, unendearing and disagreeable to others, DON’T SAY
factual, true, yet unbeneficial, unendearing and disagreeable to others, DON’T SAY
factual, true, beneficial, yet unendearing and disagreeable to others, SAY, ONLY AT PROPER TIME
unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, yet endearing and agreeable to others, DON’T SAY
factual, true, but unbeneficial, yet endearing and agreeable to others, DON’T SAY
factual, true, beneficial, and endearing and agreeable to others, SAY, ONLY AT PROPER TIME
——— More…

The begetarian Hindu, “Hindujin ha” Reply

While writing vegetarian I accidentally wrote begeterean which goes towards bigotry. Supremacy. Vegetarian Supremacy.

But I just wanted to write a small episode about Vegetarianism in “Hindu”. [“Hindu” like “Dharma” is one of the most abused word in modern context, in-fact everything we inherited from our forefathers; we have abused, including ourselves.]

When I was in Japan, (which I am always at) the very polite Japanese people (especially ladies, no holds no bar, cool) threw off at times a particular conundrum toward my psyche. I have been non-veggy from quite young times. (Although borne into a Hindu brahmana family, brahmana, etymo; maharajya maanya, “the honorable” from the nation, Japanese; monoyabaraka)

The conundrum was this; why Hindu people drink cow’s milk but not eat its meat, if cow is holy. [such was silently murmured in little shops, as they were utterly deluded as to howto make sense so that they can serve their customers better]

[giyuu niyuu, giyuu niku] = [Cow Milk, Cow Meat]

The totalitarians often would give you “for Hindus cows are holy, like mother, can we cut our own mother? We drink only mother’s milk na.”

So far so good, A logical analyst like me, while finds cutting an(y) animal for food a bit harsh, yes, but nonetheless just milking the cow is also harsh, and we have tried to find a middle path or moderate approach toward having “rest to mind” by agreeing milking is a far less harsh situation.

We do not tie a woman and lactate her and let her live in shit-bed and even supply that milk via OmFed. Okay that’s a bit funny, but that would be quite harsh and in some people’s definitions P-Graphic.

So the whole question of cow-worship as holy-mother is bullish. It only served us to bring a softer version of “harshness” and we are all facing harsh reality of life and must survive hence cow’s milk serves our purpose of being moderate as opposed to “meat eating aggressors”.

But there is a raging controversy about it and a lotta heated argument especially among Hindu Intelligentsia as to shall we or shall we not eat the cow-meat. I have oftentimes as early as 2004-05 maintained a stoic stance  “Food is a personal choice and no one shall insinuate another about their food choice especially in veiled religious aggression”.

We can all become vegetarians but it won’t absolve us of our aggression toward “OTHER” religion. Vegetarianism is not a license to insinuate others, whether meat eaters, halal meat eaters or any kind. In-fact it merely comes from a habit of forming an identity of OTHERs and taunt them regarding how their ways are total bullish and ours is better, then aggression is associated to meat and non-aggression and non-violence to non-meat products, better Hindus vs despicable hindus and so on. We have even invented how garlic is “inflammatory and should be rejected” possibly because it gets used in cooking meat. Our chauvinism has no bound.

But the fact is tying a cow is also violence, if its a Holy Animal. [Although not as violent as cutting its flesh and enjoying, the chicken would also cry, I want to be “holy hindu poultry”]

All in All from food habit we can not decide who is a good person or who is not, from drink habits or smoke habits or any kind of habits we can’t. Someone had said “All habits are bad habits”. (Some would say your writing is a bad habit, but then, what can I say, I only try to bring balance to my psyche by writing, volition of thoughts shall we call it?)

I shall end by saying “Hindu jin ha omoshiroi”. That the Hindu people are interesting. But Hindu shall only mean one from India. Hence one can if say, All Islam is Hindu, one can also say all Hindu are Islam. How can that not be? It can be because we are all mixed to the quantum. Which is where we run into another problem, that we invented for ourselves. History as a license to invent and reinvent.

Everything loses its meaning at the torment of the quantum. We shall realize the quantum and be happy. How about that, even Dalai Lama agrees on that.

Happy lunch hour, I just had mine. Stay Cool.

Some views on Indian culture. Reply

Some views on Indian culture.

Manmohan Dash

I have wanted to talk about 3 snippets of my views on what I think of 3 popular aspects of Indian culture, which any Indian who is a globe trotter is bound to be found in discussion with an international diaspora, because of their sheer popularity. I will mention 4 but leave out that one.

1. Indian women when married, wear a red mark, called “mang ki sindur” or vermilion on forehead. (No I am not going to talk about lipstick, its a modernized version)

2. Indian temple walls, popularly called now as Hindu temples walls, are replete with sexual imagery, but as far as we know, it only immediately precedes the Mughal and British influx. Were the Hindus always conservative, ancient antiques say otherwise.

3. Indian or Hindu temple walls have been defaced to a large extent. Mostly an act of dishonor on the artifacts, with their noses being disfigured. What causes this shameful act.

4. Brahmanism, (and caste system) Basically Brahmanism is a religion separated from Hinduism, but now mixed, a “fact” you will not see so well mentioned, as would be well mentioned, Brahmanism vs caste system, we discuss things based on our agenda about them.

I have had my thoughts spared on most of these, on and off, and have had slight differences of opinion with majorly held views, except point-1. But lately when I relaxed myself, I realize that these thoughts are still prevalent in my mindscape and they have slightly matured, as to how I am seeing them now, a slight difference of opinion with even myself. I am not anyone’s agent, trying to give the value of scholarship to otherwise disqualified people. I will talk about that a little as well.

So lets go point-by-point. More…

सत्य कि बिबिधता सिमित हैं, यद्यपि सिर्फ एक में सीमित नहीं। Reply

बिज्ञान अक्सर परिभाषाओं के दायरे में सिमित रह जाती है क्यों कि इस से ऊपर उठना अल्बर्ट आइनस्टीन के भाषा में “बिज्ञान चमत्कार है अगर इसे कमाने कि एक पन्था से दुरी से देखा जाये तो” जैसे “पूर्ब सोम कि सत्य” जैसा प्रतीत है. यह अलग बिचारों से अलग हो जाती है, पर सत्य एक मात्र उपलब्धि न होने पर भी बहत सारे उपलब्धि भी नहीं हैं, कुछ और सीमित उपलब्धियां सत्य कि भरमाई करते हैं।

चेतन भगत के बिकने के कारण भी ढेर सारे हैं जो बिज्ञान से तालुक नहीं रखते, इसके परिभाषाओं के दायरे में, लेकिन क्या हम कह सकते हैं वो कामशास्त्र से ज्यादा महत्व रखता है? चेतन एक जातीय आशा कि कयामत से परिबंधित है, पर कामशास्त्र एक प्राचीन अतः अंतराष्ट्रीय, तथा एक कोमल भाबना कि महिमा जैसे परिकल्पनिया है. यह चेतन कि महनीयता के ऊपर प्रश्न नहीं, बल्कि सत्य कि बिबिधता के ऊपर आलोकित करने की चेष्टा है।

सत्य कि बिबिधता सिमित हैं, यद्यपि सिर्फ एक में सीमित नहीं।

सत्य अनिर्बचनिया है. यह सुन्दर भी है, शील भी है … More…