Do you know Beethoven?

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

Proselytize
—————

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)

The problem of eating beef.

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.

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

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
———

Some views on Indian culture.

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.

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

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 …

1 2 3 5