Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.

Archive for October, 2016

David – Saul’s choice

One of the interesting and recurring themes in Christian sermons is the victory of David over Goliath. That in the English language it has become an idiom to epitomise an unrecognised person defeating a person of reputation is of little importance to the preachers!

What impels me to write this piece is the preachery which goes on from the pulpits stating that a shepherd became a king through the Grace of God, as if man and his efforts count for nothing! This suits the preachers who steal the resources and labour of individuals and accumulate the collection into their Trusts, where the individual contributions have lost their identities and the Trusteeship smugly rests in the hands of the Author’s heirs. This is a nice arrangement as none can claim his contribution as significant and the individual contribution itself gets diluted into the huge pot of the Trust.

Jesus never ever told anyone to be seeking idle righteousness. If one were to read the closing verses of chapter 6 of the Gospel of Luke, it is clear that Jesus wanted human beings to WORK and DO according to His teachings.

In fact in the parable of the Talents, the Capital provider not merely encouraged the persons who doubled the capital given, but chided and punished the man who received one talent and kept it idle and returned that talent safely.

Every Christian preacher has concentrated on leading a flock which is taught Patience, which is nothing but veiled Idleness.

David was a go getter. When he went to give the goodies to Abner, he enquired beyond the task assigned and looked around for finding an opportunity to engage his skills, honed in his idle and lean hours.

That’s the hallmark of leadership. Hone one’s skills during lean and idle hours; nursing a Hope that an opportunity would arise for exhibiting one’s skills and looking around for such opportunities; declaring that one is equal to those challenges; executing the job with meticulous precision and finally giving ALL THE GLORY TO GOD!

That the preachers tell the flock to give all glory to God, is the final stage of human effort fructified through God’s Grace. Preachers want a share in the fruits of the success of the congregation, consequently they skip all the intervening stages which compose and culminate in the bearing of the fruits.

They have ignored the training needed for the flock to build up their skills; the courage shown against the adversities and hopelessness which loomed before the members of the flock won! They need your success in the form of Tithes; if the members of the flock can’t generate income, obtain free labour from those indigent flock members! This overemphasis on Grace, is a camouflage for the rapacity of the preachers. They themselves float Trusts and obtain nameless contributions so that they don’t have to be indebted to anyone and create a secure future for their children.

The teachings of Saul the Paul, which were nothing but primer on Christianity, for the benefit of the then gentiles, have been converted into reference books on Christianity at the expense of Gospel of John, which is the most authentic reproduction of Jesus’ teachings. Jesus told the rich and self-righteous young man: GO SELL ALL THAT YOU HAVE AND GIVE IT TO TGE POOR AND FOLLOW ME. But the Pauline instructions in the epistle primers have been efficiently used to spread a new gospel: GO SELL ALL THAT YOU HAVE, GIVE THE SALE PROCEEDS TO US AND FOLLOW JESUS (ref: Annanias & Sapphira)

David’s skills were not and wouldn’t have been welcomed by Saul, the King, with desperation, as is being made out. Saul was also the anointed of God when he clothed David with his coatmail. If one is to occupy even the position of a harpist in the palace of Saul, he needed to prove his skills. How much more would it have been for Saul to choose a person to fight the Philistine, where the implication of a loss would enslave the whole Israel. I am sure that Saul would not have allowed David to fight Goliath without testing the skills of David. In those circumstances Saul would have ensured that David hit a target within a millimetre, ten times out of ten. Further, it was Israeli history that Benjamites were the best slingers of all the tribes of Israel, read Judges to confirm my statement. Saul being a Benjamite, would have known inside out the skills of slinging.

Those skills which enabled David, was not inborn, even assuming it to have been an inborn skill without practice and honing, no skill could measure up in times of adversity, especially with the thought that if he failed, not only that would have been his last day, but would have put the Israeli liberty in jeopardy!

It is the skill, courage, execution and the Grace which culminated in the decimation of Goliath which was what fetched Glory. It is that Glory which David surrendered to God. Our preachers are telling Christian flock to surrender the Glory, where none exists! Our preachers are canvassing for surrender of free labour in the name of God, instead of instilling in the minds of the young flock to build up skills, hone it regularly, scout for opportunities, hope in God and thereafter execute when the opportunity is found. Finally after victory, SURRENDER ALL GLORY TO GOD.

Preachers should stop standing with begging bowls to collect the tithes from the successful and free labour from the indigent to feather their own nests through the structure of Trusts controlled by their own family members!

God loves man, but He loves more the Effort, Courage, Execution skills and Hope of man!

Stop preaching the primers of Christianity cleverly alloyed with Pharisaical erudition!

Dramatic Monologue of Robert Browning!

I wonder if even Robert envisaged that his dramatic monologues would go viral in the future and make aficionados go threadbare on the emotions which he impregnated within his monologues. 

My Last Duchess: every word is shown through the prism of the Widower Duke! We know nothing of what sort of person the last duchess was. It is the duke who is saying that she was simple yet ignorant enough to treat centuries of heritage of the Duchy to be of the commons. 

The Duke is unsure if he gave orders, and all smiles stopped without knowing that she was not only loyal but also committed to him! A murder of Innocence. The reader is equally confused with the equivocation of the Duke. Duke spreads his murder of Innocence. 

In Porphyria’s Lover, the lover murders Porphyria, to freeze that moment of Porphyria’s display of what? Was she propitiating for her untold guilt? Or is it that the Lover was consumed with Porphyria that he believes in some guilty deed – presumably infidelity? No details are given. 

Facts are assumed. In the first poem a Duchess had been murdered and the next one is being negotiated for. In the second poem the Lover has frozen a moment precluding Porphyria from any further guilty behaviour. 

Both men, from the poems do not furnish proof of guilt to the readers, but the dubious circumstances in which both had died, leaves the reader with a dilemma as to whether those women deserved that treatment either from the Duke or the Lover. 

I have teetered in my assessment between murder of Innocence and crime of passion. Othello is wrong and Desdemona was innocent, but Othello is also a victim of planned slander, the murder is condemned, in these poems of Robert, there is no such resolution. A tinge of morality intervenes to deny giving a clean slate to the Duchess or Porphyria! 

Finally a sense of proportion is creeping in!

In a nutshell, a junior officer of the Air Force has an affair with his senior officer’s wife, who also happens to be another Air Force officer of the same rank as her husband. The lady officer committed suicide upon the junior officer marrying someone else. The junior officer is court martialled and dismissed from service by the Govt. Upon appeal to the Air Force Tribunal, the junior officer’s sentence has been reduced to ‘ released from service’!
The grounds of the guilt hinges primarily on ‘stealing the affections of a brother officer’s wife’ – the question to be determined for answer are manifold. She was higher in rank too. She was in the same service too. It was consensual; the woman was older; she could not handle the junior officer getting married and committed suicide; was the adultery with the connivance or consent of her husband? All these questions need to be answered before dragging the man through the mud. Poor fellow, his relief is limited to a palliative of removing the taint of dismissal but nothing substantive, as if the man was solely responsible for an adulterous relationship with a woman being older and higher in rank in the same services! Let us strive to apportion guilt proportionate to the deed, not through the Imperialistic prism of the laws made by East India Company for enriching the shareholders back in London then! After all the IPC had new in the making since the 30’s of the 18th century much before the Crown assumed direct control !

Myth making!

Myth making! 
There is only one thing which causes a Myth and it is the accretion of unproven and at times unprovable but palatable and sweetened facts. A Myth is probably a historical figure, who though accretion of eulogy and mindless belief on the merits of the facts narrated by the previous generation, becomes an irreplicable (just coined a word) symbol of some quality or power! 

A Myth is something which lacks a counterpoint ! There should be nothing required to complement it in any way. 

In the process the society hates any negative input to those characters except the wicked and evil ones. There is no blend, there is no internal jostling, just peaceful harmony. 

The casualty in all this Myth making is the Seeker of Truth! He has no incentive for ascertaining the Truth and declaring it. Thereby becomes a rare breed taking private tuitions like Aristotle to Alexander because of the munificence of his father Philip of Macedonia! When the Truth seeker becomes a private tutor he becomes a mercenary of knowledge, when he is idle, he becomes a cynic- like Diogenes! 

An evolved culture is one when negative comments are allowed to co-exist without any pressure from the majority and judged by the law and the Justices under a common law. 

Now do we know why we Indians are excellent mythmakers? Anyone can add to the image so long as it is a positive comment eulogising the object! There would be no touchstone in that culture which will come to value copper as much as gold all for want of TOUCHSTONE! It is in that touchstone lies the value of the metal! 

Pharisaical Trust!

If you don’t trust, then you will be reassured through unverifiable assertions! Therefore pretend to Trust, but put the facts available on probation! 
So what happens if your pretension of Trust leads you to commit? 

The only way is to not commit when in doubt. Maybe by not committing you run the risk of losing an opportunity. Hence your pretence keeps you pinned to the lie not believed, removing the gusto which naturally follows Trust. 
So is the pretended Trust a liability in the long run? Yes. 
The only way to overcome this dilemma is to state that you are skeptical about an assertion, but would like to be a mercenary to that Trust scavenging on the benefits to accrue! 

Truth has its super travails with a prolonged gestation! 

Hence to Trust is easier than to have the conviction of Truth. 

How beneficial this has turned out to be for the Christian Pharisees to insist on a Trusting flock. Lay the burden of the Pharisaical standards of Righteousness on the flock, but peddle Christian Grace for a good life – of the Evangelist.

 That’s called Wages without Labour! 


Once when Benjamin Disraeli was asked the difference between Misfortune and Calamity, he said: If Gladstone were to fall into the Thames that would be misfortune, but if somebody were to pull him out, that would be a calamity! 

Look for the possibilities of the intent of that statement, not that Disraeli intended any of those at all! Yet, the possibilities of the intention possible behind that statement ought to be attempted to be brought to consciousness. 

Very few would believe that Disraeli meant that he wanted Gladstone to struggle and swim the Thames and reach the bank! Human thought takes such an idea as desiring death of another human being! So the conception would be that Disraeli intended the death of Gladstone! That’s the Political Passion, not merely defeat of one’s opponents, but desire annihilation! The politician wants a free ground, something akin to Shah Jehan, Akbar, Jehangir’s had been in those bazaars within the fort palace at Agra, where all stalls were manned by nubile girls and the sole customer was the Emperor! Babur would have been ashamed of it, that his heirs were demeaning themselves by excluding their opponents from the game of Life! Babur, Shershah Suri and Raja Raja Chola needed to be included along with Asoka and Akbar as greats! 

Getting back to the thread, with political Passion being such, it is impossible to ascribe innocence when a politician gets curious about the health of his bete-noir, except see his opportunities to fish in troubled waters! 

What I detest about politicians is this lack of humanism- a realisation that LIFE is in the hands of the Divine. Yet their passion is to have an uninterrupted field for them to have a field day – every day! 

Tag Cloud