Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.

Archive for August, 2014


So the motorcycle rider who possessed a helmet more for statutory reasons than belief in protection of his skull, had placed it on his bike’s petrol tank and was cruising at @ 40 kmph. For some reason, the helmet fell off the tank on to the road and rolled to the centre of the road halting the ongoing traffic, while he abruptly stopped his bike on the middle of the road and went chasing his helmet. 

My friend who was seated beside me says,”Look at this moron, who is now protecting his helmet from being run over by a heavy vehicle instead of the helmet protecting him in an eventuality!

Well said, I thought.

But it also triggered a thought not very dissimilar to the actions of that moron. Firstly,  to overcome our anxieties, fears and to fulfill our aspirations we wear RELIGION as our helmet and as time goes by, we fall into ritualistic religion having NO BELIEF in our practices nevertheless following them intermittently. Some day when our religion or our religious beliefs are threatened,  we go around “protecting” our religion from the assaults perceived by us. The functional use is lost and we zealously protect the symbols of our FAITH without any BELIEF! I thought, I was equally a moron!

But remembered Jesus’ statement: The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath!

Shyly obscene!

This phrase did not elicit, in me as a post graduate student, the nuanced expression of a female caught in the expression of  a prohibited thought to which her mind had involuntarily leapt, when my professor was expatiating on one of the poems of e.e.cummings.

The poem was TOUCH WITH MY MIND by e.e.cummings. There were poems of e.e cummings and Alan Ginsberg prescribed, which were more explicit and appealed to our callow sensitivities, but with time and age a certain subtlety is appreciated better. I am impelled to reproduce the poem below for the readers of this blog, as I feel it would be a great injustice to leave the blog tantalizingly poised  without the proof of the poem.

Lady, i will touch you with my mind.
Touch you and touch and touch
until you give
me suddenly a smile,shyly obscene

(lady i will
touch you with my mind.)Touch
you,that is all,

lightly and you utterly will become
with infinite care

the poem which i do not write.”

E.E. Cummings 

Explaining a poem is the most preposterous thing to do! It is not WHAT THE POET MEANT AT THE TIME OF PENNING THE POEM, BUT IT IS WHAT THE POEM MEANS TO ANYONE WHO CARES TO READ IT- AT ANY POINT OF TIME! (If anyone has any doubts about it plz try reading CHILDE ROLAND TO THE DARK TOWER CAME and I am sure, despite myriad interpretations, none would match the mind-set of Browning when he penned it- that is if he had cared to explain it!)

The beauty about this SHYLY OBSCENE expression is that it would be on the face of a person only for a flash and that moment has to be frozen, magnified and prolonged for one to appreciate it. This, e.e cummings elicits in the lady through persistent intrusion with his mind on the lady. An intrusion which is not violative, yet perceptible and the lady “responds” to that ‘mental touch’ with this SHYLY OBSCENE expression. There was this “suddenness” to her expression which had to be “captured” by the poet. 

I am sure that this poem is not only delicately sensitive, but also shows the GENTLEMANLY MANLINESS of the poet. The male instinct to impress and seek intrusion is the law of the nature, but to be cowed down by the unattainable beauty or mental moat built by women, is not uncommon. But here the poet is persistent and breaches her moral barriers and glimpses the momentary gushing womanliness in two words. 

e.e cummings has left behind a disparate combination of words poignantly expressing that expression, which any gentleman would have drawn from his beloved!

Slavery in Christianity!

Deuteronomy Ch.23, verses 15 & 16

Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:

He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.

This is the commandment given by God the father through Moses. Moses had been overruled by Jesus on many such laws and in proof thereof please read Matt: 25 and 26, wherein Jesus says, “…. but I say unto you…” and amended the Mosaic law with DIVINE authority. However, Jesus does not make any statement about SLAVES overruling the Mosaic law relating to escapee slaves . 

Paul has an opinion on anything and everything. Having an opinion is not as bad as having scripted his opinion and such scripted having been found worthy by the compilers of the New Testament to be included in the New Testament. Further, Paul’s opinions were addressed to members, of the fledgling faith of Christianity, who were not rooted in the Judaic tradition. So when he wrote to the new members in Ephesus, he wrote for the edification of those members who were surrounded by a different spiritual ethos. Even when King Solomon, after having surrounded himself with Sidonian, Egyptian, Hittite women, succumbed to their gods and goddesses like Ashtoreth, Milcom, Baal etc. So Ephesians were in a different milieu and when Paul says at Ehesians 6:5-  Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ, he is not recommending SLAVERY, he is merely telling the slaves not to worry about their present plight but “press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” of Christian salvation and hope! Is such attitude tenable in Christianity? I am certain that Christianity never did nor would have ever recommended SLAVERY.

Let me first re-quote the Mosaic law: 

Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:

He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.

1600 years (at least) before Paul had ordained himself an Apostle, Moses had written the above law as having been ordained by God the Father. So, Judaism is very clear on THREE things:





But Paul was given to much PRESCRIPTIVE CHRISTIANITY, a malaise from which he suffered when he was a Pharisee and later when he altered into a Pharisaical Christian. In any case, none of Paul’s letters show him to be a meek man (Moses was the meekest man Number 12:3), given to boasting but claiming that he wasn’t and in fact that he shouldn’t be! Another instance where SLAVERY finds a reference in Paul’s letter is at Colossians  at 3:22, however, the KJV states as “servants” and hence I am disinclined to accept the other versions, where instead of the word servant ‘slave’ has been used. Paul  was more than kind to Onesimus in recommending him to Philemon, however,  true to his sophistry and chicanery tells Philemon that Paul would pay Onesimus’ debts with a superb piece of verbal calisthenics thus :I will pay it back—not to mention that you owe me your very self. (Philemon v. 19). Why will Paul pay, if Philemon owes his very self to Paul?  

So   why did Jesus use Paul? The answer is in Mark 9:39.

 John said to Him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us.”39 But Jesus said, “Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. 40 “For he who is not against us is for us.…

Paul did what none did or could have done immediately after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. His was to spread the Gospel, he was the greatest CHRISTIAN EVANGELIST, who used letters and speech to turn people into Christians, rather than turn others into Christians by being a model through his own life! 

 Therefore his office was over and in legal parlance, his evangelism is FUNCTUS OFFICIO and to follow his prescriptive Christianity only helps the Pentecostals to build a brand of Christianity which emphasizes on tithes (revenue model for Pentecostal churches), preparatory Eucharist (denying administration of Eucharist if the priest feels that the communicant is unworthy, and thereby exercise authority!) and Exclusivity! 

 I hope Christians would abandon Paulian Christianity and return to Jesus and read the Gospels of John and Matthew, without allowing themselves to be tainted by such PRESCRIPTIVE CHRISTIANITY!

To come back to the topic, Christianity is the REPEALED version of the Mosaic law, where no amendments were made, or Moses’ provisions were not abrogated, the old is to be blended with Jesus’ statements. In the light of such an assertion, Christianity always gave LIBERTY to flee from SLAVERY and cast a duty on others to accommodate a runaway and provide opportunity for pursuit of happiness through FREEDOM. 

So this leads to the next question as to whether, the slave owner has any RIGHT to own a slave and does that IMPOSE any DUTY on others, excluding the slave so owned? Yes, there was a RIGHT  in-personam between the owner and the slave, it was not the slave owner’s right in-rem, where the whole society was to respect the ownership of the master!

 Further, there are different categories of slaves mentioned in the Bible viz. those who have been abducted/kidnapped and sold as slaves;  those Jews who had fallen into debts and have sold themselves as slaves being unable to repay their debts; Jewish slaves who have renounced their freedom and bound themselves with their masters, and non-Jews taken captive and freely traded.

If one were to go by Paul’s recommendation of attitude of the slaves in EPHESIANS, we freeze history to the Roman institution of slavery. But the instructions in the BIBLE, being an eternal book, cannot be limited to a set milieu or political order or even time. Joseph was sold by his brothers before Moses gave the commandment in Deuteronomy, therefore, merely because there was no law can we say that slavery was RIGHT? No, it was permitted by default, because the evil nature of man wanted to subjugate fellow humans and extract labour or other compliance from those fellowmen and women!

When THE BIBLE gives the LIBERTY to a slave to run away and the slave owner denied  any protection through other persons, how can one assume that slavery was a matter of RIGHT? A RIGHT is NO RIGHT, if it does not cast a DUTY on others. In fact the Mosaic law casts a duty on the person, to whom the erstwhile slave takes refuge, to provide him space and liberty. 

It gained the status of a RIGHT only under the ROMAN law, and since Paul was a Roman (which he invoked whenever it suited him!), he had preposterously made the Roman law the benchmark for advising salves to obey their masters as if they were obeying Christ! This verse in THE BIBLE cannot be taken to support SLAVERY in THE BIBLE. Even Kevin Rudd, fell a victim to such Paulian prescription which has unfortunately been embedded in the BIBLE. 

Christianity is the religion of LIBERTY and FREEDOM, let us not choose passages to support our evil  inclination, but be humble and read the Gospels of John and Matthew (simply because, a first hand recounting of Jesus’ life and teachings ought to be more reliable than hear say narration!) and LIBERATE ourselves from such self-demeaning practices. 

Murder for Love!

Movid's Weblog

The murder is 7 years old, but the verdict is fresh. It has taken 7 years for the judiciary of the first instance to convict and sentence for life the fiancee Shubha,  her paramour Arun Verma and their 2 accomplices. This delay is despite the trial being held in the FAST TRACK Courts! We Indians, love epics, in fact, we do not want to conclude matters. If it is prolonged there is a false notion that there has been “THOROUGHNESS” to the proceedings.

Getting back to our story, Shubha was in love with a guy called Arun Verma (TOI, Bangalore dt. 15th July, 2010 puts him to be from the state of Bihar, whereas the other Newspapers have been cagey about mentioning the statehood of the perpetrator of the crime!) but in the meanwhile, Shubha’s father gets her engaged, against her wishes, to her neighbour and friend for 15…

View original post 499 more words

Tag Cloud