Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Just asking....



I have no idea what is going on around the world.

I hardly watch news. I once came across one Indian channel which proclaims itself as a news channel and all I heard was people screaming at each other. The news anchor was the loudest of them all.

I hate loud sounds.

Hate it when people screams. Hate it when people shouts. It totally disturbs my whole being. Its like throwing a huge rock into the water. It just takes a lot of time for the ripples to settle.

Heard that India is intolerant.

This is kind of news to me. Must be a new thing. Normal people in India gives two fucks what religion anyone belongs to. India will probably become intolerant because all it takes is enough of people to feed into that myth and lo! behold, we become that. That is the beauty of an idea.

Take a bow , God.

I feel the biggest worry that India should be concerned about is giving up , willingly , your rights. And for heaven sake, stop calling your government, the rulers!!!

When the fuck are you going to get over your subjective thought process. You are not ruled. You are governed. There is a fucking huge difference.

What worries me is when the government starts to take on the role of a mother. When they tell you what you have to do and cant do. That's when it gets worrying. Heard that we are now telling people what they can eat and what they cant. Who they can fuck and who they cant.

You see the pattern?

I am not a moralistic person. Never was. I have absolutely no morals. For that matter, I don't care what other people's morals are either. As long as your deeds are not stepping on another's right to exist in their own expression, then see if I give a damn, if you are a beef eating, heavy smoking, middle aged lesbian who wants to worship at Sabrimala.

Personally I don't care. What does bother me is when you say that the beef eating lesbian lady cannot have that view.

I feel we have forgotten the art of debate.

It is through debate that Shankaracharya rejuvenated the temple culture from the widely popular Buddhism. It was through talking , hearing , understanding.

Having an opinion and insisting that that opinion is the only right opinion and to give it authenticity or some sort of validity, dragging in dead people's wisdom which forgets that every thought , every words, every action has a relevance only at a particular time, is akin to verbal terrorism.

I find Ayyappan cool.

He can only have been conceived by a mallu mind.

He is conceived by the union of Shiva and Vishnu ( are the anti gay Hindu community listening?) . thereby bringing together the Vishnavites and Shivates. To take it one step higher, traditionally you were required to first pay your respect at a mosque before you walk towards the Sanidhanam. There is a ritualistic tantric reason why menstruating women were not allowed into a temple .There are temples where a menstruating woman can go to worship. There are also temples where men cannot enter. It was never about exclusion. The ancient way of life, or what I would rather term as a sanskriti , which is now tagged as Hinduism, was never about exclusion. It was always about inclusion. It incorporates everything , everyone, every idea, every concepts. If you can think it, we can find a way of fitting it in.

'How can you say that?'

To me there is nothing more stupid than that question but it still deserves an answer.

I was questioned sometime back on my view on Hitler. Truth is , I have no view on him. But a question was asked about this admiration about him in my part of land, which I had to admit , is there. I have my theories about it. Suddenly the whole conversation went south. It was amusing but at the same time, a bit painful. You see, I was not allowed to admire any qualities of his. How is a man to be judged by time? It is an interesting thought. Ponder over it. What you see will at first scare you, but then you will experience a liberation from fixed perceptions.

Question for the day.

The Nirbhaya Rapists. Is it the act that you condone or is it the person who did the act? I agree that you cannot separate the person from the act , so for a criminal act, logically, the person who committed the act is to be held responsible. My question is this: Can you see them as someone's son, capable of love or loved by someone? Were they kind to someone?

You see where I am going with this?

Are they just rapists?

Judge the deed, not the doer.

No comments: