Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.

Archive for June, 2009

WHY JESUS IS MY HERO & WOULD HAVE BEEN, EVEN IF I HAD NOT BEEN A CHRISTIAN?


LEAVING ASIDE ALL THE BELIEF IN THE DIVINITY OF JESUS, ASSUMING THAT I WAS NOT A CHRISTIAN, HAD I READ THE BIBLE. I AM INDEED SURE THAT JESUS WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN MY HERO.

THE REASONS FOR MY CONCLUSIONS ARE BASED ON MERE LOGIC & NOTHING MORE.

JESUS HAD A STATED AGENDA. A stated agenda is the agenda that which is declared by the individual as the path that he is going to follow. It is a SELF DECLARATION. A declaration of the path, no matter what the hurdles are. Jesus declared that HE WAS THE SON OF GOD and the MESSIAH, which according to the Jewish tradition was to happen. The CHRIST (the Anointed ONE) had to be born. His foster father was from Nazareth and therefore Jesus was thought to be from the region of Galilee, and the Jewish holy books do not predict the advent of the Messiah from that region. He was born into the family headed by a carpenter. Consequently, NO FAMILY SUPPORT OR HELP. It is from this background that JESUS came.

His STATED AGENDA was that He had come down to do the will of the FATHER. That “will” was not DECLARED and consequently none could defy Jesus’ stated purpose. There had been many who claimed to be the Christ before and most of their names have fallen by the wayside in history. But why did he succeed? Many were crucified on the cross for both Blasphemy and Treason, yet they did not leave anything that lasted beyond a few years. But Jesus’ name and His teachings have lasted and is relevant even today. BUT WHY?

JESUS STATED HIS AGENDA AND STUCK TO IT, TILL THE VERY END.

Jesus took on the two most powerful INSTITUTIONS of his time. The ROMAN EMPIRE and THE JEWISH RELIGION. The persons who represented their interest were PONTIUS PILATE and JOSEPH CAIAPHAS respectively. The Governor Pilate had the power to destroy the body and the High Priest Caiaphas could declare that Jesus’ teachings or his life was not in conformity with the Jewish religious texts and therefore could bring accusations of blasphemy and thereby have him executed. So Jesus as a single individual had to withstand the might of the Roman Empire and the Religious leaders of his own times.

It is easy to fight battles get hold of a small kingdom consolidate one’s power and establish one’s rule and then slowly grow, but Jesus had nothing, absolutely nothing. HE HAD SPIRITUAL POWER. The power that was be tested to the very last! He said to his disciples, ” DO U THINK THAT IF I ASKED MY FATHER, HE WOULDN’T SEND ME A LEGION OF ANGELS?” and yet he wouldn’t ask. He believed that he had come to TAKE AWAY THE SINS OF THE WORLD and therefore HAD TO SACRIFICE HIS SELF AND NOT THWART HIS FATHER’S WILL.

From an outsider’s point of view, it might have looked like a tall claim. Yes it was tall, but when he was taken to Pilate he defied him by saying IF THE POWER WERE NOT TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN FROM ABOVE, U CANNOT HAVE THE POWER THAT U CLAIM U HAVE! That was truly glorifying the FATHER, that except the power be given by the Father u, Pilate, have no power over me. Needs SPIRITUAL COURAGE to say that to the man who had the power. Pilate understands that and realizes the limitations of his TEMPORAL power and washes his hands off the whole issue. But Caiaphas and his religious group cannot. JESUS was making them irrelevant with his teachings, sermons and thru his disciples. They bring in the religious laws and interpret them according to their understanding or convenience. They threaten, they insult, they disparage Him, but JESUS stands SUPREME AND ALONE, despite all the physical limitations! His stated agenda is intact. Will of the father is being done.

Jesus says that he had the power to summon a legion of angels. Whether it was a bluff or not depends on the call. In a game of poker if one is holding a royal flush and the other is holding a Straight flush in the same suit, and if the guy holding a royal flush DECLARES that he has a Royal flush and the other guy has no Ace or King to the suit and the community cards has the Queen , Jack and Ten of the suit declared by the Royal Flush holder on the board and if the other guy has the 9 and 8 of the same suit as pocket cards: HE HAS AN OPTION TO CALL, RAISE or FOLD. Assuming that the Royal flush claimant was Jesus in the flesh, and the  Straight flush holder was Joseph Caiaphas, Caiaphas wanted JESUS to CALL and NOT TO RAISE. Jesus RAISED THE SPIRITUAL BAR. He threw away the Mosaic laws of retribution and brought in COMPASSION and SACRIFICE.

Caiaphas did not have the money to match JESUS’ bid. A spiritual bid, way beyond Caiaphas’ means. Caiphas pulled out his revolver and shot HIM dead.

Whom do i support? The killer who did not WANT TO play the game, HE DID NOT HAVE THE ACE AND KING HIMSELF BUT WAS NOT SURE IF JESUS HELD IT AT ALL!

The killer  was afraid of losing MONEY( his position and power as the High Priest)! CAIPHAS BLINKED! Read the following verses from Gospel of John Ch.18:-

19: The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.
20: Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.
21: Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.
22: And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?
23: Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?
24: Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.

THE PERSON WHO HELD HIS OWN AMONGST ALL ODDS AND SACRIFICED AND SET AN EXAMPLE THAT ALL EXISTING POWERS WANT STATUS QUO TO CONTINUE, BUT YOU CAN BRING A CHANGE, IF U STICK TO THE FORMULA, IF YOUR FORMULA IS RIGHT!

HOW CAN I BE WITHOUT FOLLOWING A MAN WHO STOOD HIS GROUND ON HIS CONVICTIONS!(His convictions have become the creed of many fathers of Nations including Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and many others who have drawn inspiration therefrom in their little battles of life with the oppressive authorities!)

(***this blog is not for Christians, but a line of argument for the skeptically  logical)

EVE & THE SERPENT!


The story of Eve eating the Forbidden Fruit ( whether apple or not, i don’t know), is  a secular story even though, i believe that the origin is from the book of GENESIS from the Bible.

When Eve opened the communications channel with Serpent, Adam was not around.

Secondly, the Serpent just said “……….hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” and my multi-great ancestress says, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.”

With this she gave away the precise location of the tree of prohibition and the terrible consequences of  eating the fruit!

The serpent defies the warnings of God and says , “Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

Eve is having a good time , thinking that she’s educating herself for a better life, where she could be more knowledgeable and BE LIKE GOD!!”

Now this is where she missed the point. MERE KNOWLEDGE DOES NOT EMPOWER A PERSON, THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE ESSENTIAL TO BECOME A GOD. THE GOD WAS A CREATOR, BUT WHAT SHE ENDED UP INVENTING WAS SKIRTS AND APRONS TO HIDE HIS & HER NAKEDNESS.

KNOWLEDGE SHOULD BE ACQUIRED, BUT WITHIN MANAGEABLE LIMITS.

UNMANAGEABLE KNOWLEDGE REVEALS OUR OWN NAKEDNESS, AND INSTEAD OF DOING SOMETHING FRUITFUL WE GET BUSY HIDING OUR OWN NAKEDNESS THRU FIG LEAVES AND HIDING!!!


OF BULLS & OXEN!


In any organization, there are Bulls and there are Oxen. The functions of the Bulls are very different from those of the Oxen. But before going to the functions of the bulls and oxen, let us look into the structural differences between the two and how the structural differences define the nature of the functions to a very large extent.

BULLS ARE BULLS, BUT OXEN COULD HAVE BEEN BULLS.

Well, that is the first difference. It may look so simple, yet it is not. The farmer knows better. The simple might say that had the oxen not been castrated, they would have also matured into bulls. Yes, physiologically they are right, but the farmer factors in many other considerations which go into the making of the bulls and oxen.

The farmer looks into the pedigree of the bull calf. It has to have been SIRED by a bull that has withstood the onslaught of the cows, and sired calves that are strong if a bull calf and great milch cow if a cow calf and useful for the farmer in his business. So the farmer’s assessment is final, because his business priorities are set by him and they are the rules.

Further in any farm, just like in an Organization, there are more requirements for oxen than bulls.

THE COWS NEED BULLS, BUT THE FARMER NEEDS OXEN.

It may sound strange that the farmer needs oxen more than bulls! But the Truth is strange, as always. If one goes to the veterinary college one could see the STRAWS of eminent bulls. These are cold storaged(!) semen of eminent bulls which have sired the best cows and bulls. Remove the semen and store it for reproduction instead of FEEDING BULLS AND PUTTING UP WITH THEIR TANTRUMS! The cows just wanna get pregnant, they do not insist on the process. They just want to get rid of their ovulation failing which they call out to their farmers incessantly.

WHY AN ORGANIZATION NEEDS MORE OXEN THAN BULLS?

Bulls are a threat to the Management , as the Management itself is DISCHARGING THE PLEASANT FUNCTIONS OF THE BULLS. So who is to do the tasks and chores? Obviously the oxen. The oxen are docile, trained to the yoke, do not run away when whipped, feel guilty when whipped and conform to the expectations of the farmer, and never ever chases COWS.

This behaviour of the OXEN not only suits the priorities of the farmer, but also extracts more income to sustain the lifestyle of the farmer (the management bulls!). But the bull stamps its signature for the future generations!! In an organization, anyone who has the authority to affix his signature and if that signature has authority, then it is the signature of the BULL.

THE ONLY ERROR THAT HAPPENED IN THE LIFE OF AN OX WAS THAT, HE DID NOT RUN AWAY WHEN HE WAS TAKEN FOR CASTRATION!

THE BULL TOLD THE OX, I TOOK TO MY HEELS (HOOVES?) WHEN I FIRST ESPIED A NUTCRACKER & HERE I AM A BULL!!

I CAN BULLSHIT CAN U? THE OX WAS STUNNED.

IMMACULATE CONCEPTION!


I happened to watch a TV channel that goes by the name, PEACE, where one Ahmed Deedat was comparing Christianity with Islam. He was contrasting more than comparing.

The fundamental issue is whether one is interested in the comparing / contrast of two different Religions because one is interested in proving the superiority of the one over the other to keep the flock together or to clearly demarcate the parameters and study different religions to make a PERSONAL CHOICE. The second is not possible if one has already made a CHOICE of Religion, as the reasons adduced for supporting a particular religion would outweigh the reasons for supporting the other.

I would have let it pass without a blog, had Deedat not placed absolute reliance on The Koran for the understanding of Jesus.

Firstly he disputes on the grounds, that there are 24000, documents that reflect the life of Jesus and not two documents agree on facts about the life Jesus. The Bible therefore ,according to him, is a document which has many inaccuracies and therefore not entirely reliable on the teachings of Jesus. If one were to accept that line of argument, then the Koran which came into existence -as regards the life of Jesus- should be construed as 24, 001 st document and since the other 24,000 versions pre-date the Koran , there would be no logic in accepting the averments made in respect of Jesus in Koran.

He goes on to cite Gospel of John ch.3, v.16 and takes objection  to the words   ‘…that He gave His ONLY BEGOTTEN SON….’, and says that God cannot BEGET, as the act of begetting is ,’a lower animal function of sex.’ Therefore,  it is tantamount to blasphemy of God.

We as humans are unable to visualize the BEGETTING process except through SEX. The problem is with us. God created the sex organs so that man could reproduce, and if it were only posited with the reproductive purpose, man may not REPLENISH AND FILL THE WORLD. Therefore, IMHO, God had put PLEASURE and the concomitant EMOTIONS, THOUGHTS, IDEAS around sexual functions and gave man a PLEASURABLE REPRODUCTIVE PROCESS. To call that a lower animal function would be a misnomer.

Today, science has improved to such an extent that without a man and woman mating, children could be made. Which means, without the sexual functions put to use, a zygote could be formed and also brought it to maturity.  If this is possible, with MAN, i am sure God could have caused Mary, mother of Jesus, to conceive without the sexual functions so essential for reproduction.

More fundamental is the issue that man and man’s understanding is limited to the FIVE senses and the extensions created thereto thru science. Which means except for SIGHT, SMELL, TOUCH, TASTE and HEARING man is not endowed with any other sense. If we have invented Geiger counter, the tremors which cannot be felt thru the sense of TOUCH, could be felt by the Geiger Counter and therefore an extension of the sense of TOUCH. If we have invented a machine to measure ULTRASOUNDS, it is a machine as an extension to our sense of HEARING; likewise an X-RAY machine with the help of a film enhances our sense of SIGHT, without cutting open a human body. So, we are limited and severely limited to the 5 senses and the extensions invented by us. When such is the case, to believe that IMMACULATE CONCEPTION is possible only through sexual function seems a very narrow view.

But if, one does not believe, that GOD cannot have a Son or that God cannot be born as a Man limited in SPACE & TIME, then there is a fundamental irreconcilable difference and no common meeting ground.

Probably, the message was given by Mr.Ahmed Deedat  for the followers of Islam and was not meant for me. I just strayed into his lecture and felt that he was a shepherd to the flock to which i not only do not belong, but am fundamentally different from.

The Rope of Life.


While climbing the Rope of Life, i stretched my hand to clutch the next higher grasp. A Hand held my wrist, before i could grasp the rope, and pulled me up.

As i was used to my notions of “climbing”, and as i doubted the intentions of the Hand, i held on to the rope with a firmer grip with the other hand, refusing to let go the rope of SAFETY.

Thereupon i heard a Voice that said, “If you don’t let go of your SECURITY of the Rope and your NOTIONS of how to climb, I cannot lift you straight up, on the ROPE OF LIFE and put you ahead. Therefore TRUST and let go of the other hand. This help, one does not get often. Like as the stirring of the pool near the Sheep Gate at Bethesda, you have to hurry up and give up your clinging. I can tell you this, as I helped a man, near the same pool, who spent 38 years following the procedures (even before my genesis in flesh) with no healing! The place where I will take you, may not be reached by your own efforts and diligence. So TRUST ME and let go of your hand!”

The Compassion of the Voice and the Power of the Words squashed my logic and doubts. The TRUST was not mine, it was the Compassion of the Voice and the POWER of the words, and i slackened my grip and Lo and behold! in the twinkling of an eye, me and the rope were parted and i was darted up and placed up way beyond my knowledge or recognition. My clothes were changed and i was with others far superior to my earlier imagination.

I am still climbing the rope but with a safety belt to my hip and gloves to my hands, with lots of knots at regular intervals on the rope.

One moment of TRUST, and subjecting my DOUBTS to the VOICE and THE WORD has bestowed the Peace ineffable!!

KOEL’S NIGHT CALL!!


Last night, the one that dusks on Fathers once a year- being the Fathers’ Day, a strange thing happened. Whether by coincidence or by cosmic harmony i don’t know.

It was in Bangalore and at about 8 in the evening, a koel started its plaintive call. A call that was strange to my ears not only because of the timbre of the call but also the timing of the call. The koel’s call was a DISTRESS CALL. It was not the joyous one that is heard during the monsoon days.

Reclining on my bed, shut out all music and sounds waiting for the call. A koel calling so late was new to me and my mind sallied to grasp the possible reasons. The LOOSE SALLY OF MY MIND  led to interesting areas. It was FATHERS’ DAY night and what does the koel have to  do with PARENTING? The koel is the bird that fathers but does not PARENT. I had written a blog yesterday, quite trenchant about initiating new practices in the church with reference to FATHERS’ DAY. But a voice similar (to the link below) but high in pitch and reverberating rent the late evening air in the neighbourhood.

http://home.tiscali.nl/jvanderw/malaysia02/sounds/asiankoel.mp3

How appropriate i thought, that it was the Cuckoo’s (another name for koel) day. The koel, as we all know, lays its eggs in the nest of other birds and leaves the parenting to the nest builders. That the smart crow ends up parenting the Koel/cuckoo till the cuckoo starts singing, speaks a lot about the daftness of the crow. But life has its harmonizations after all smartness has to be checked by the Creator!

Was the koel’s distress call , i wondered, because his female had not come to roost for the night?

Was it because, the male koel was anxious that the female had been in some difficulty and calling for locating it?

Was it the call of cuckoldry, that the male was calling and announcing that his mate had found another koel to father her eggs?

Maybe like the Raven of Edgar Allan Poe, the Koel was saying, “NEVERMORE WILL SHE BE MY MATE. SHE’S GONE ASTRAY!”

I do not know, but it is strange that the Koel called plaintively and sonorously on the night of the FATHERS’ DAY!


free counters

Father’s day in CHURCHES!!!


This day the TWENTY FIRST OF JUNE, IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD TWO THOUSAND AND NINE has been celebrated as the FATHERS’ DAY in India. This is in-keeping with the tradition started in the US of A. Wikipedia has the following to say on the Fathers’ Day:-

The first observance of Father’s Day is believed to have been held on July 5, 1908 in a church located in Fairmont, West Virginia, by Dr. Robert Webb of West Virginia at the Williams Memorial Methodist Episcopal Church South of Fairmont.[1] [2] The church still exists under the name of Central United Methodist Church

Another driving force behind the establishment of the integration of Father’s Day was Mrs. Sonora Smart Dodd, born in Creston, Washington. Her father, the Civil War veteran William Jackson Smart, was a single parent who reared his six children in Spokane, Washington.[3] She was inspired by Anna Jarvis‘s efforts to establish Mother’s Day. Although she initially suggested June 5, her father’s birthday, she did not provide the organizers with enough time to make arrangements, and the celebration was deferred to the third Sunday of June. The first June Father’s Day was celebrated on June 19, 1910, in Spokane, WA, at the Spokane YMCA.

Now, we humble Indians are not merely following the American tradition but are enthusiastically following FATHERS’ DAY.The word FATHER could mean different things in different contexts. But from the historical background that is made available to us by WIKIPEDIA, it seems that there are two essential ingredients viz. the male parent should have fathered and secondly he should have parented.
The first FATHERING is a matter of conjecture and the second of PARENTING is the only idea that could be inferred from the male parent’s behaviour & conduct.

In the US, by the beginning of the Twentieth century it was common for women to divorce or be divorced and to have children from other males. Therefore they had different fathers but all siblings were raised in the same family. The new husband, besides fathering his own children thru the woman, also played the role of the provider as a parent. He might not have played the FATHERING role to the children of the woman thru her earlier marriages, but he may have to play the role of a PARENT to his step children. Therefore it must have become essential for the FATHER ( the child’s mother’s boyfriend/ new husband) to find approval within the community and also a good opportunity for the man to declare the status of the children fathered by him outside the wedlock (it is not uncommon for women not to get married yet have children before the real marriage- pl refer to the marriage between Kamal Haasan and Sarika who had 2 children before they married even in India).

This FATHERS’  DAY in the USA must have been celebrated for all these difficult realities that the church going Christians had got themselves into over a period of time.

Later, as we all know The MOTHERS’ DAY got so commercialized that even the originator of the concept regretted that. Wikipedia has the following to say:-

The modern Mother’s Day holiday was created by Anna Jarvis in Grafton, West Virginia, as a day to honor mothers and motherhood; especially within the context of families, and family relationships.[1] It is now celebrated on various days, in many parts of the world.The holiday eventually became so commercialized that many, including its founder, Anna Jarvis, considered it a “Hallmark Holiday“, i.e. one with an overwhelming commercial purpose. Anna ended up opposing the holiday she had helped to create.

When such an American concept is imported to India and celebrated or at least recognized  in the Churches, it appears to be a practice not in consonance with Indian ethos or realities.

In most of the churches, FATHERS are asked to stand up during worship service and handed over a stalk of flower ( like in FREE CHURCH at Parliament Street, New Delhi) or a memento like a bookmark or a pen (some symbolic fathering that!!) and prayed for.

Churches SHOULD NOT START PRACTICES that are not in-keeping with the scriptures. Otherwise like the LUKEAN injunction “do this in remembrance of me…”(communion) shall end up overshadowing John’s injunction ”  wash each others feet to show that u serve each other and not Lord over others..” (Jesus’ humility in washing his disciples’ feet.)

If u haven’t followed what i was driving at read the four gospels regarding communion:-

Matthew

26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom. 26:30 And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.

Mark

14:22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. 14:23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. 14:25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

14:26 And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.

Luke

22:17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: 22:18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

John

13:4 He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. 13:5 After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded. 13:6 Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? 13:7 Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter. 13:8 Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. 13:9 Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. 13:10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. 13:11 For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean. 13:12 So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?13:13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. 13:14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. 13:15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. 13:16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. 13:17 If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.

13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me. 13:19 Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he. 13:20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. 13:21 When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. 13:22 Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake. 13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. 13:24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake. 13:25 He then lying on Jesus’ breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it? 13:26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. 13:27 And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly. 13:28 Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him. 13:29 For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor.13:30 He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night.

Except for the Gospel of St.Luke, there is no mention of  DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME stuff. St.Luke, if it was the Dr.Luke to St.Paul, it must be inferred that Luke was a votary of Paul and carried away by the Paulian doctrine, which was neither first hand in flesh nor concurred with by St.John (a cousin of Jesus and the disciple who lived the longest in flesh and wrote his Gospel later than all the 3 other gospels). I am very certain in flesh and in spirit that if Jesus had made that statement in flesh, John would have reported it, but what has been reported as regards WASHING OF EACH OTHERS’ FEET is conveniently ignored!!

We thereby end up doing things that are convenient and ignore the unpleasant, but cardinal injunctions of CHRIST.

FAITH!


The guy , who gave ‘FAITH’ the spectrum of meanings  possible for that one apparently simple word, if sighted by me, and if i am empowered to deal with him the way that i’d like to (of course without sin & guilt), i would torture him so gradually that i would feed him with all the posited meanings of the word FAITH and keep him in perpetual torture that he would forget FAITH and understand the meaning of the word MERCY!

He would beg for MERCY and give up on his illusory FAITH!!

FAITH in what? on whom? of what? till when? for what? It has become the greatest IDEA of preservation of a personal ILLUSION.

“Faith could move mountains.”

If the mountains didn’t exist to start with, Faith can still make one believe that the mountains existed and that they were removed by Faith & therefore they don’t exist now!!!

SHINEY AHUJA & RAPE!!


The latest news that is absolutely revolting is the allegation that Shiney Ahuja, an actor in the Hindi film industry, had raped his own housemaid in his own house in his own matrimonial bed. The interesting part was that the rape is alleged to have occurred when none was around and none heard anything indicating any distress when the alleged rape is said to have been committed. The fact as to whether a rape had taken place or not is not my concern in this blog as much as the statement said to have been made by Shiney Ahuja’s wife Anupam Ahuja.

“EVEN WOMEN COULD COMMIT RAPE !”

In this vast country of over 1.2 billion people, if one were to go by individual opinions, there would be no way of arriving at any conclusion. So i take recourse to the good old Macaulay’s Indian Penal Code of 1860, which defines rape as under:-

[375. Rape.

A man is said to commit “rape” who has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions: –

First: – Against her will.

Secondly: –without her consent.

Thirdly: – With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt.

Fourthly: –With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.

Fifthly: – With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.

Sixthly: – With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age.

Explanation: – Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.

_____________________________________________________________

Macaulay missed something which has been so prominently pronounced in the Bible. He was obviously making laws for the native Indians and his efforts to codify the criminal laws in England miserably failed.

I have excerpted here below the verses from the Book of Genesis Chapter 19 : 30-36. The Bible besides being Scripture inspired by God for man’s edification, is also compendium of human affairs, which covers an extensive period that one could take recourse to it for history and facts too.

19:30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

19:31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father [is] old, and [there is] not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

19:32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

19:33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

19:34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, [and] lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

19:35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

19:36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

The incident clearly spells out that MEN could be raped AGAINST THEIR WILL, CONSENT & UNDER FORCED INTOXICATION. Macaulay who was given to much reading of the Bible and the influence therefrom had conveniently ignored this incident and made RAPE possible only by MEN.

As the law stands today, there is very little scope for the Courts to interpret RAPE as a gender neutral issue. The perpetrator has to be a man and a man only. It is the absolute responsibility of the MALE to preserve his genitals from being salaciously predated by lustful women, as, if semen is found in the vaginal smear of the complaining woman the man would be left without a defence.

Therefore, Anupam Ahuja’s interpretation that the rape was committed by the house maid on her innocent husband may be a possibility, in the realm of possibilities, but cannot be sustained in law. Citing movies like AITRAAZ, is interesting and may appeal to the movie smitten rabble, but carries very less weight.

Anupam Ahuja should have known that when a man is left alone with a woman, as per the in-built mechanism of life, HIS TASTE DECLINES & HIS APPETITE ENHANCES.

Assuming that sex had taken place with the consent of the maid, it is nothing new that after the very act, the woman might regret having lost something and to gain publicity could have said that the act was without her will and without her consent. She has nothing MORE to lose. Aided by those WOMEN’S organization to egg her on to sustain the tempo to enhance their visibility.

In any case Shiney’s future in the industry or otherwise, doesn’t seem so shiny, as the allegation is made by a person whose standing in the society is more likely to elicit sympathy for the maid.

BAD CAREER MOVE, SHINEY!! (who would love to be paired with a man who had slept with his servant maid? Yes, Beckham would have had it with his baby sitter, but Shiney is no Beckham and Anupam is no Spice Girl either!!!)


POKER FACE-BOOK!!


The first time i heard of POKER was in the movie McKenna’s Gold, where Eli Wallach tells the Marshall (Gregory Peck) that they could play some poker along the way! Peck retorts, “Not with your cards, but mine!”

Even though i had been familiar with a few card games including Bridge, somehow the game of POKER never sounded interesting to my ears. My friends have been avid players of this card game in an application offered by FACEBOOK. It was by accident that i espied  my son playing poker at the same site and yelling out when he made a few tens of thousands of virtual dollars.

The game was introduced to me by my son, who had by then run up a healthy 50,000$ to his credit. Having a greater credit of those virtual dollars allowed one an access to rooms where the stakes were high. If one did not have a sizable balance one would not even know, what gambling is all about, much less as to what a POKER FACE was!!

It took me a cool two and a half months to get into the millionaire category and as luck would have it, the mentality to gamble is embedded  human  mind, and i decided to try my luck. FORTUNE and POVERTY both come thru this  strain. Till this strain struck me, i was happy making my $50,000 daily and quitting the table. But alas, gradualism is unexciting and the mind speculates as to what would happen if one million chips are thrown in for a good hand!

Aided by my college mate, on that fateful night of 15th of June, 2009, i embarked on a venture that was not merely bordering greed, but avarice. Found a seat in the room where the big guns were blazing. Sat with one million dollars, and like a spider waiting for a pair of Aces or Kings. Many rounds i had folded even after putting the initial chips of 10,000$ or 20,000$, as the dream hand had not turned up. Lo and behold after about 5 rounds a pair of Aces turned up for me. I played blind and dropped half million dollars. Almost everyone folded, but one of the multi millionaires put 900,000$ and raised the bid, I went ALL IN. All of ONE MILLION chips, hard earned through the school of gradualism.

I was thinking to myself, another Ace and i might leapfrog into the two million category. It was a nice feeling. My friend Shekar was egging me on, if you don’t trust your luck NOW when could you possibly TRUST? The next three community cards came up. One Ace and two kings. I was thrilled. Now i had Three aces and two kings to make a Full House. There is a very rare chance of a person beating a combination of hand like this.

I felt at the top of the world. Am gonna become a multi millionaire (anything more than one was multi- exuberance, my friend exuberance!!). The  other options possible for me to lose were FOAK (four of a kind), Straight Flush or a Royal Flush. My experience had shown me , that it was never that a FOAK or straight flushes or royal flushes occur in the same game to compete with each other., although it was theoretically possible.

The other two cards opened up and they were 7 club and 2 Diamond. My anxiety about my opponent holding a better hand receded. When the hands were shown, to my shock i found that my opponent held 2 more kings in his hand making it a FOUR OF A KIND in KINGS!!

I saw my chips flowing towards my opponent’s table and mine showing the grand cipher. Thus my hopes turned to be false and now i have gone back to where i started from and the stakes are $2/$4.

My friend Shekar was amused. “Hey these are worthless virtual dollars and nothing more, ” said he. But today when i enter the casino and see myself sitting with paupers and scrambling for 1 dollar and 2 dollars, i remember my greed and justify the divine justice that is inscrutable and mostly illogical to human mind!! With a stern and expressionless face, i play my poker now.

Throw with HOPE, but never with the certainty of Winning!!

IF YOU DON’T HAVE BREAD, GO EAT CAKES!!


Well, we all know that the title of this blog was attributed to Queen Mary (Marie in French) Antoinette, at the onset of the French Revolution of 1789. When the aam aadmi of Paris and the surrounding areas petitioned the powerful queen, that they do not have “BREAD” to eat, Mary Antoinette is supposed to have said, “IF YOU DON’T HAVE BREAD, GO EAT CAKES!!” Whether she actually said it or not is not important, but that the statement is befittingly attributed to her just before the Revolution, is a great THEME in itself.

The fact of her statement is immaterial, but the attribution of that statement to a person in those circumstances is perfect.

Many wonder at the callousness of Mary Antoinette even today. But we are all Mary Antoinettes in our own ways. For us also sometimes BREAD and CAKES are not qualitatively distinguishable. Both are alternatives for sating our appetite.

In my FACEBOOK account, in a lighter vein, i had commented that to improve the roads of Bangalore the way was to use a high-end Mercedes or a BMW, so that the potholes do not send the springs of your car seats up your rectum or the pollution (both noise & air) do not harass your long stays during those interminable jams! This suggestions are similar to the bread and cake statement of Mary Antoinette.

The lidded manholes of Bangalore are the deepest in the country. At more than 20kmph, one will not be able to sight them: and when u follow another car, without aligning your tyres with the preceding car, the dip would be so excruciating that one could feel one’s big intestines rising to one’s throat. But, our elected representatives do not feel the urgency to do anything about the plight of the roads. After all they use high-end cars!!

Now that the ROADS OF BANGALORE have become the second home to most of the commuters, it is time we cocooned ourselves either inside a VOLVO bus or a high-end car that would make the journey less annoying.

The elected civic politicians are showing their inability, by citing funds position. Why not we think of PPP (Public Private Partnerships) and allocate toll roads inside the city. I am sure that the entrepreneurs, who had done a commendable job by appropriating the National Highways and made it their private fiefdoms, would be terribly interested in putting up flyovers and collecting toll for the next 40 years or so!!! Just as the National Highway 46, part of 7 etc. were hived off to private parties, thereby denying FREE access to the aam aadmi, we could hive off roads to private contractors. After all INFRASTRUCTURE is the flavour of these days!!!

IN BANGALORE THERE IS EVERY POSSIBILITY FOR HAVING CITY HIGHWAYS (JUST LIKE THE ONE TO THE ELECTRONIC CITY). BUT THE CONFUSION SHOULD MOUNT TO SUCH AN EXTENT, THAT SELLING OFF PUBLIC ASSETS SHOULD SEEM TO BE A WORTHWHILE OPTION.

we will have cakes instead of bread!

LEVERAGING LUCK!


In today’s(9th June, 2009)TIMES OF INDIA, Bangalore edition, there was a statement ascribed to Roger Federer, which runs as follows: ” Even if one has luck, it has to be pursued and encashed when one is still lucky.”

Roger Federer had tasted defeat at the hands of Rafael Nadal  in the finals of two different Grand Slam events. Pete Sampras  had lost to Martin Safin, Hewitt and Agassi in Grand Slam finals, but Federer had lost only to Nadal. This year’s finals at the French Open was the only opportunity that Federer got in the recent past to play the French finals without Nadal. The eventual finalist Soderling was responsible for the loss of Nadal in the earlier round.

The way Soderling played against Nadal, i was sure that Soderling would take the French Title. By hindsight, that was not to be. Federer demolished Soderling in the finals, that too in straight sets. Soderling simply did not have the grit nor the mental resistance to forget that he was playing a 13 time grand slam champion! In fact in the post match interview Soderling was thankful that, “Roger gave me a lesson in tennis!” It reflected the mental subservience that Soderling had submitted himself to sub-consciously even before the match and so shamelessly expressed after the match. Well one cannot expect much from the 23rd seeded player.

Despite all the above facts, which so egregiously conspired to favour Roger, it was for Roger to encash the LUCK that was so benignly smiling at him. Roger rose to the occasion. No Nadal and he sniffed the French trophy at grasping distance. He redoubled his effort and ensured that the match did not go beyond the 3rd set. Who knows as to whether after the third set the Dame Luck would still have  smiled or spurned? Federer took no chances, he executed and there he stood as the champion.

I for one am happy for Federer, even though i terribly dislike his tearful expressions of joys and sorrows on court. Tennis may not be the manliest of games, but it sure is one of the gentlemanliest of games and crying on court without the ability to hold back one’s tears despite one’s victory or loss is reflective of the lack of gamesmanship.

Methinks his wife is more poised and evens out these outbursts.

Octopus V. Shark


One has to watch this video to change one’s opinion on who would win a fight between an octopus and a shark. Shark is a peripatetic predator which moves around and spreads terror, but the octopus is a master in disguise & an ambush predator.

If it was the ARM that made Man a tool wielding animal and made him superior to the other beings, it is definitely the tentacles which act as arms to the octopus & gives it the superiority.

The octopus looks harmless, but when it strikes, it is lethal. There is hope that man will continue to acquire more and more knowledge and get rid of his prejudices and all the more that he will restore the fair name of SHARK, as another being that is not only predatory, but a victim too at times!!

As an old saying in Thamizh, VALLAVANUKKU VALLAVAN VAIYAGATHTHIL UNDU, there is a more valiant one than the valiant in this world!!!

 

Tag Cloud