On why I bought a cap I did not need

In the summer of 2007, I was in Srinagar contemplating the purchase of a cap. It was one meant for men, and while trying it on I caused the shopkeeper to laugh heartily when I asked my companion if it made me look like Ghulam Nabi Azad.

In pitching the cap to me, he said "Haan haan..namaaz padhne ke liye badhiya rahega"- Yes yes, it will be great for saying namaaz (Muslim prayer).

My companion looked at me in a manner that made it obvious to the shopkeeper that I was no namaaz-sayer.

A second later he added, "Uh..vaise pooja paath mein bhi pehen sakte hain sar dhakne ke liye"- But you could also use it to cover your head during (Hindu) prayers

While it was very perceptive of him to gauge from my companion's expression that I was not the namaaz-saying type, he did make a big leap in assuming that I was a pooja-paath doer.

I did appreciate the flexibility of his sales pitch, and ended up buying the cap.

The Religious Tolerance of the Atheist

Travelling to London one afternoon, the passenger sitting next me momentarily shelved what I had come to regard as British social etiquette, and struck up a conversation with me despite the fact that I was a total stranger. Being non-British myself, I didn't feel offended as if my private space had been invaded so all was well. Though I must admit I found it a bit strange that she seemed to want to chat despite the fact that I had my nose buried in a book. After general chit chat about what I did, where I was from, what I was going to do etc. etc., she happened to mention that she was on a course in theology, attempting to make better sense of her religion. She had converted to Catholicism recently.

During the two hour or so train journey, she and I spent about sixty or so minutes talking about religion and God, among other things such as psychological suffering, human existence, and mental illness.

Let me state at the outset that I am not a religious person. I don't practice any religion, and while I think nearly all organised religions may have something to offer as far as humanism is concerned, I think overall they have led to more division than unity, and more harm than good for humanity.

I made my religious indifference clear to her quite early in our conversation.

We spoke about God and nature, and she told me how as part of her religious journey she had learnt how to witness God in everything around us, especially the natural world. She added that some people were unable to see it that way, and wanted evidence to prove the existence of God. I calmly replied that individuals were all different and both positions were equally valid. It's just a question of the meaning you ascribe to things and events, more often than not it just boils down to the words we use to construct those meanings. Some people are moved by faith, some are not. I also added that it was hard for either to convince the other, because if one knew the language of the other there wouldn't be a problem to begin with. As an example, I pointed out that no matter how hard they tried, they might not be able to convince Richard Dawkins about God's existence all around us. People who need evidence need it before they can believe, and people who speak the language of faith need you to believe before you can see the "evidence".

The question here appears to lie on the atheism/theism vs. agnosticism question. Some may be quite happy to believe without having the knowledge, others may disbelieve in the absence of knowledge. Some others may claim to possess the knowledge, which I have to admit seems an odd position to have, but that's my personal viewpoint.

She then asked me what I thought of Richard Dawkins. She said she often felt he said what he did just for publicity. Now despite my tolerance, I don't like people being misunderstood or misrepresented, so I promptly came to Dawkins' defense and told her I didn't think he did it for publicity and he really does believe in what he writes. Or writes what he believes in. Whichever way you look at it.

We agreed that it was best to try and learn about one's religion academically, to make better sense of it and arrive at your own subjective interpretation of it, rather than blindly following what others have said. I would appreciate any effort by the religious to try and deconstruct their religion. I anticipate it will lead to shifts in their world view.

She came across as someone trying to make sense of the world through the prism of her religion, seeking external validation in the process. Far from trying to convince me of the supremacy of her religious world view, she seemed to be quite unconvinced about it herself. I remained largely non committal, making a case for subjective realities, individual choice and preference, and broadmindedness enough to have an opinion while letting others have their own opinions as well. While she nodded along in agreement, I think my non committal answers did frustrate her a little.

Fellow atheists might feel I let her off too easily. That I should have argued against her beliefs, and metaphorically put-her-in-her-place. I on the other hand feel I did quite alright to make my own position known. Why not defend your position more vociferously, some might ask. Why not try to convince the other that religion is less than ideal? That you are right and they are erring?

I don't feel the need to defend my position. I think I am right, and that suffices for me. I am definitely not aiming to convince anyone of anything. I am convinced of my position, and in discussions and exchanges of ideas with me if another were to start thinking or feeling differently, I would regard that as a natural bi-product of a conversation between open minded individuals rather than a victory for "my side" or my powers of persuasion.

In order to influence others' opinions, two conditions must be met. Firstly, you should have conviction in what you're trying to say and secondly, the other should have enough mental elasticity to accommodate your views. If these two conditions are absent, any conscious effort to try and convince another person will be an exercise in futility. On the other hand, if they are both present, I believe some transfer of ideas will naturally occur by osmosis.

While we're on the subject, I definitely don't think the way to make an impression on another person is by belittling their existing viewpoints. Try telling someone suffering from psychosis that they are wrong in believing that Iran is developing nuclear weapons with the specific aim of destroying them, for example, and watch the metaphorical distance between the two of you increase right before your eyes.

Certain types of beliefs are impervious to arguments aimed at proving them wrong. Knowledge/ignorance can be tackled by logical arguments. But what do you do when someone says "I don't know but I believe...." ? The only way to confront those beliefs is by admitting "I hear what you're saying, but this is what I believe". That's the end of it.

We have heard the words "religious tolerance" often enough. What does it mean though? Does it mean respecting all religions equally? Perhaps not. Your own choice and lifestyle make it abundantly clear that you respect one way of life more than another. That's why you choose to follow it. If I choose to practice XYZ to the exclusion of other religions, it's quite apparent that something about XYZ appeals to me more than other religions.

Atheists, it is fair to say, have little respect for any organised religion. Otherwise they wouldn't be atheists, would they?

What exactly is religious tolerance then?

It is not about respecting or supporting other religions. It is about respecting and supporting an other's freedom to choose to practice any or all of those religions. Remember Voltaire's famous quote on tolerance? No, not the one about which considerable controversy still exists, but the straightforward one from his Essay on Tolerance - "Think for yourself, and let others enjoy the privilege to do so".

I trust, or would like to trust, that atheists do believe in liberal humanism even if they scoff at the world's recognised religions. Liberal humanists, while making their views known, let others arrive at their own conclusions about the nature of things. They are broadminded enough to realise that the world is filled with different individuals, each of whom may live their lives as they choose, even with much pomp and show, and have every right to do so.

Let it be known that I also think it is annoying when someone tries to sell an idea to you despite much head-shaking and protests on your part. Religious types can come on pretty strong, I agree. But many a time it seems to me that any discussion on the subject is perceived as being an attempt to promote one's agenda rather than what it is- a mere exchange of ideas. I wish it weren't so.

Of course, for the times that they do hound you and try to win you over to "their side", maybe the above mentioned will help you ward them off by giving them gyaan (a lesson) in tolerance for individual differences and freedom of choice.

Politely saying "Thanks for the offer, but I'm all set for now" might be a better solution than having an angry war of words.

Faith Fighters- Join the movement !

The state of the world today, with all its terrorism and sickening displays of religious intolerance, demands that all of humankind stops, takes notice and wonders what the hell to do about it.

Well, some have found a potentially workable solution to at least some of the problems of religious violence.

A fantastic game called "Faith Fighter"

Recently discovered by my beloved and me, it basically involves a one on one (man vs. man, man vs. god, or man vs. alien depending on who you are pitted against at any given moment) street fight where one kicks the other's ass (And vital organs if either one is a good enough fighter!)

Invented by Molleindustria as a video game, it has recently been the subject of much outcry* etc. by los fanaticos religiosos. Clearly, they haven't been able to see the potential this fun game has to solve some of the greatest issues facing humanity today!

This is how it goes

You choose who you want to play as. The choices are among the following

- GOD (Who is shown as a rather short and squat- though muscular- man with a white beard)

- JESUS (Son of the above mentioned, shown as a lean and lanky fellow whose favourite defensive stance seems to resemble a "Namaste")

- BUDDHA (Who is blue, wears a saffron robe and looks a bit like Ram from Indian Nritya Natikas- dance dramas)

- MUHAMMAD- (Who is again a lean and lanky man, wearing a green kurta, with a knife slung low on his waist)

- GANESHA (Beloved elephant headed god, shown - obviously- as an elephant. Albeit a rather angry looking one)

- BUDAI (A fat and jovial figure, wearing nothing but a loin-cloth. One of his slick moves involves falling asleep)

- XENU (An alien, who is hardly fun to fight because his- like Mashrafe Mortaza's- favourite shot seems to be "playing defense")

Then you are meant to fight each of the other figures one after the other, each contest lasting three rounds.

Interested drones can play here - http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/421199

I personally really like street fighting type games (Mortal Kombat was a favourite). There is something about the rawness of being able to punch your enemy in the face, kick them in the shin and beat the crap out of them to emerge the winner. Of course, I already know it gives vent to my latent aggression so any reader coming to that conclusion should know that that would not qualify as a deep and insightful interpretation.

Which is why I really like this game! But its advantages for mankind at large go very much beyond that.

Imagine if people were to use this as a means to resolve religious differences. Using simulation to re create and experience difficult emotions and deal with them is a therapeutic technique. Why not apply the same to the problem of religion?

The whole my-god-kicks-your-god's-ass question is so easy to resolve- in just three rounds of let's-settle-this-once-and-for-all-by-taking-it-outside good old fashioned street fight.

Of course, some might say that people might resolve to street fights as a way to shut the other up vis a vis the above question anyway. So how is this game any better? Well, let me tell you how.

Can two ordinary men or women engaging in a street fight in the dark alleys of Ghaziabad, Mangalore, Moradabad or any other place in the world use special effects to make themselves invisible (Muhammad), or freeze the enemy into a block of ice (Xenu)? Hah! Didn't think so!

The sound effects, animation etc go a long way to make the entire fight appear comical and pointless. Plus, by using Faith Fighter, you realise that ultimately, your god or your religion is only as strong or as weak as you are.

So everyone can enjoy the game, win a couple of rounds, and go back to the ideal goal of introspection and evolving into a better person.

Better yet, try playing as a religious figure different from the one you would normally identify with. It is like learning an important lesson- That your individual skills and abilities (and other personal traits) account for more of who you are, than your alleged religious identity. Because believe me, we've (beloved and I) tried playing as each and every one of the characters, and ended up winners. Yeah, it feels great :-P

Who knows, you might even give into the urge of swearing** at your opponent, even while playing as your perceived enemy in real life.

Go on then. Give it a shot.

*I hate protests against any form of creative expression or genius. Be it writing, drawing, or inventing video games! The inventors like it, the players like it, what the hell is everyone else's problem anyway?

What happened to the good values of "I may not agree with your opinion but I shall defend to my death your right to have it?"

** I cannot tell a lie. Swearing while playing games is great fun. Sigh, what does this say about me!? Sob sob. Oh well, at least I am good at Faith Fighter :-P

A man who keep surpassing himself in the ability to say the most dangerous and obnoxious things

From here

'How could Indira Gandhi's grandson pose a danger to the country, the Sena chief asked. "If what he said poses danger to the country then arrest 80 crore Hindus under NSA," he added.'

Question: What is worse, more damaging and more anger arousing than Varun Gandhi's recent views and "alleged" remarks that got him booked under the NSA?

Answer: A crazed old fascist hoping to speak on behalf of 80 crore Hindus of this country, and suggesting that they might endorse those (or similar) views.

I don't know what it is about people assuming the right to represent and speak on behalf of others. It just pisses me off. Whether it is Manmohan Singh telling George Bush that the people of India love him, or whether it is Thackeray going off on his grotesque religious tangents again.

Ease

TQ: You are god sent
Holy Cow: we all are my dear
TQ: or whoever you would like to have been sent by
Holy Cow: equally god sent or non god sent, whichever way you look at it
TQ: :) Thank you would be less controversial ..
Holy Cow: Indeed. And you are welcome :-)

It's nice to be able to set things straight with friends this way.

Eye opening journalism

Watching the coverage of the flood in Bihar by CNN IBN tonight

Two moments I would like to highlight

1. They showed various statues of god, submerged in water and the correspondent’s voice rang forth “…even God cannot save them”

Hmmm…. even God cant save them. Even God can’t save us.

What does that tell you?

2. Last shot (in which the correspondent proudly says her name and the channel she works for) in this case was a picture of her sailing through the flood waters (for effect of course) while two poor elderly and frail looking male flood victims pushed the makeshift bamboo shoot boat she sat on.

I mean this doesn’t exactly paint the perfect picture of a concerned journalist trying to evoke sympathy in viewers while at the same time projecting an image of herself/ her channel as getting down and dirty by reporting from ground zero, does it?

When the grater reminded me of the Great one.

Woody Allen once said, "How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter?"

I got reminded of that when I accidentally scraped a part of my finger against the sharp blades of the grater, while grating a potato.

Then of course, my dear friend Calvin popped into my head. The little guy once said,

"There must be a God... Coz surely somebody is out to get me"

:-) ouch!

The narcissism of man

TQ: actually my drift was more like how we ascribe divinity to calcium formations

Holy Cow: ? my religiously, and divinely handicapped mind cannot understand what you just said ! :-?

TQ: there are no idols in vaishno devi.. just 3 stalactites in the cave called 'pindis'
so i was just talking about how there is so much faith and religiosity etc attached to calcium formations

Holy Cow: ah okay

TQ: well.. if it can be clay idols, it can be anything
anyway..

Holy Cow: of course
in fact
the tites and mites are actually better!

TQ: how?

Holy Cow: at least they are not made by man.
I am reminded of some surah of the Quran

which says something to the effect of
ye pray to that which ye hath created*

I like that a lot :)

TQ: oh nice :)

*I do feel like I have read these very words, but there may be a memory lapse here causing a distortion in language. What it says is - Those unto whom they cry beside Allah, created naught, but are themselves created (Surah XVI, 20- Translation by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall)

But I like mine! Since it represents a very arrogant picture of man worshipping something that he himself has made, without referring to the supreme being by a particular name.

Not single, but not really double either...

From The Great Indian Novel

"Are you married?" Arjun asked gauchely
"No" Krishna replied, flashing those white teeth of his, "but my wife is."

Wah wah! (a very poor translation would be "Wow")

Fine usage of words to convey a meaning that colours many relationships.

Krishna has a wife, but isn't married to her. Or lets say he is married to her, but isn't married to her. The first usage indicates the ritual of marriage, while I use the italicised word "married" to mean a close and intimate relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, with a certain commitment, affection, romance, love etc. thrown in in varying amounts. He, being who he is, can't be tied to one person exclusively.

But being who he is, that is, a part of this world, he went through the rituals of marriage- after all, no one knew he was the almighty, and it would be considered a serious anomaly for an adult man to be unmarried now wouldn't it?

There are several like him, not avatars of dios, but plain and simple boys and girls next door, who go through the prescribed stages of life in a robotic mechanical fashion. Doing this and that because they have to be done, not because they want to do them. Unfortunately for them, they don't have the excuse of being the omnipresent one, who is free to be many things at many places at many times and everything at every place at every time. They are their wives' husbands, and their husbands' wives.

Instead of grin or a laugh, the same statement, if made by them would probably be accompanied by a sigh.

Oh, and then there are always relationships in which one feels bound to the other by a love that is not limited by or dependent on the relationship, while for the other, it is the relationship that binds him (or her) to the other and love is either absent or elsewhere.

And more questions...(and corrections)

Before the more, there was this.

Right. Back to the more. Yesterday, Holy Cow was sitting at a temple with TQ, who told me an interesting story about the Jagannath Temple at Puri. No one is allowed to remain inside the temple, that is, inside the main temple room where the idol is, overnight. They say that those who stay near the Lord overnight either go blind, or die.

Holy Cow was immediately interested. "I want to try"-"Have there been any incidents?"-"Whats the rationale behind it?"

TQ- Well, they say that in the night, God comes forward in his genuine, raw, un-idolised, true form, and its brightness is such that one goes blind because of the intensity of the light that shines off him, or dies because of exposure to the same. And yes, there have been incidents of this kind.

Holy Cow was very excited about this. She then remembered that in the Gita, Lord Krishna comes before Arjun in his natural, ujjwal (glowing), pure form- and a large section of that chapter of the text describes the brightness, the glory, the enormity of his real form- and nothing seems to happen to him!

TQ then pointed out that in the Gita, God does it out of his own volition. That is, he wants to present himself to Arjun. But in the case of the temple blindness and death, we are just hanging around when we're not supposed to, and God doesn't really want to show himself to us. We just happen to be around when it happens automatically.

This raises the following questions- If the incident of the temple is true, then the Gita is basically, untrue. If the Gita is true, then this temple incident can't be true. If both are true, then does it mean that God actually has hidden selves and he shows them to us as and when he pleases? I mean, there can't be just one pure form, and one regular one. Because we have counted three already -

1. The usual one. Idolised and worshipped.

2. Pure form no. 1, which is the one that Krishna presents himself as before Arjun. This is the one that he wants to reveal.

3. Pure form no. 2, which is the last thing that one sees before turning blind or dying inside the temple. This is the one he doesn't really want to reveal.

Does the second point suggest that Krishna was actually being untruthful when he revealed his supposedly true form to Arjuna (because of there being a third secret form that no one is allowed to see) ?

Does the last point just tell us that he is like many of us? That he too, can only be himself in solitude?

PS- Well, the Gita was revisited and checked and turns out that the Lord does present Arjuna with divine sight before revealing his true form.
However, he says to Arjuna "with these present eyes you will not be able to see me" (Chapter 11, Verse 8)
This changes things a little.

If he meant that Arjuna will not be able to see the changed form with his present eyes, then the case of the temple blindness is still not possible because without divine sight we wouldn't be able to see lord Jagannath in his true form in the first place, so the question of dying or going blind doesn't arise.

If however, he meant that Arjuna's present eyes will not be able to handle the luminosity that his true form will reflect and needs divine eyes as a shield, then the Gita and the Jagannath temple incident are in tandem, and I stand corrected.

To complicate matters further, I have been told by TQ that the blindness/death doesn't even happen all the time. It happens only once a year, when the idol is bathed. I do not know what to make of this detail.

The Gita- where others find answers, some dig up questions.

Someone known to the Holy Cow raised an interesting question a while ago.

He asked, "If the soul never dies, is it also never born? Is the number of souls constant, or ever increasing? Decrease is not a possibility since once born, it is immortal"

"Good question", said the Holy Cow, and went on, "I don't think either birth or death can be used literally while talking about the soul. It never dies, but changes form, and each new form is like a new birth.
Except that it isn't really, and you keep carrying forth your baggage from one to the next (Ref: Notion of Karma)

Also, decrease should also be a possibility, or else where does moksha fit in? I mean, the lucky ones get freedom from this chakravyuh (unending cycle from which there is no way out) right?

If immortality (which involves cycles of birth and death) is a good thing, then is moksha, freedom from this unending cycle, undesirable?"

If moksha is desirable, then it would be better for the soul to just die and not be transformed over and over again, would it not?

A philosophical text, a psychoanalyst, and a birthday party.

The Mahabharata, is a fantastic story- with characters that aren't black or white but in varying shades of grey. Covering a rather vast spectrum of issues, it has information you can actually use in day to day life.

My first exposure, and one that left a pretty strong impression on me, of the Mahabharata was the television series that Doordarshan used to show every Sunday morning. I used to watch it regularly. I was about 8-10 years of age.

The Bhagavad Gita is a part of the Mahabharata and before I read the entire text recently, I had memorised the following lines as a little girl. (Thanks to the TV show. This was the opening track)

Yada yada hi dharmasya, glanirva bhavati bharata
Abhyuthanam adharmasya, tadaatmaanam srijami aham,
Paritranaya sadhunam, vinashayaschadushkritam,
Dharma sansthapan aarthay, sambhavaami yuge yuge.

I will not attempt a literal translation. The meaning is basically that since time immemorial, whenever man has gone astray from the path of dharma, the prescribed way of life, whenever evil has overpowered good, the Lord himself has assumed human form and descended to earth, to destroy evil, reinstate dharma and righteousness.

Given the abovementioned, the question that came to my mind was this – if the birth of Lord upon the earth took place in a time of chaos and destruction, of corruption and violence, of the stripping of innocence and the slipping of moral values, then what exactly are we celebrating with Janamashtami, Ram Navami ?(Other religions too, but I am holding Vishnu responsible because it was one of his avatars - reincarnations- who allegedly said the abovementioned)

Do we celebrate because, finally, we have a saviour among us? Someone who will deliver us from the hell we have created for ourselves? Does the celebration mark the end of a long period of darkness? Is the exultation with joy masking a sigh of relief?

What I am basically trying to get at is the difference between the period before the birth of a child, and the birth of the Lord. Both are celebrated, no doubt. Both for largely selfish reasons (Of course, I accept all the flak I may face for saying that the decision to have a child is a purely selfish one. But, well that's that).

What’s the difference then?

The difference that strikes me, is that while the period before the birth of a child need not be a chaotic and dismal one, that before the birth of the Lord, in a human from (which is the only acceptable form for most people, which itself warrants a whole other discussion) necessarily does. That is, he wouldn't even be here if it weren't for our misdeeds etc. The fact that he is around should be accepted as proof that things are not quite as peachy and perfect as they ought to be.

This brings me to the next element. Donald Winnicott. (Before I go further, I must state that my knowledge of Winnicott’s theories and formulations is rather rudimentary. However, I couldn't’t wait for my knowledge to expand before I put these thoughts down. These thoughts will probably expand as and when my knowledge does).

So, Winnicott. For those unfamiliar with him, Donald Winnicott is a Psychodynamic (A tradition that branched off from classical Psychoanalysis) thinker and clinician. He has worked extensively with children, and his writings have allowed us to have a closer understanding of the inner world of a child.

One of his ideas that have stayed with me is that of the child or infant creating its mother- At the risk of oversimplification, it means that for healthy development and identity formation the mother has to be available at just the right time when the child thinks of her or wants her; allowing the child to feel that he/she has conjured her up magically; that she is by him/her and for him/her.

I think mankind carries within itself the Winnicottian child. Just as the child brings the parent, or more specifically the mother into existence, just as the child creates the mother, mankind also creates its God. The child creating the parent is a healthy process, as is mankind creating God I guess. But the sad part is that God is created out of a need more than a wish.

The child’s aggression, creativity and play, are manifested in the manner in which the child tests his environment, his parents, to check if they can withstand his outbursts. If they can, then all is well and the child moves on, grows. Analogously, the chaos and tumult which characterizes the period before the birth of God, could be equated with the child-adolescent like testing of the parent (God is, after all, our supreme mother and father). The child throws its toys about, makes a mess and the mother smiles patiently and lovingly, teaches the child how to restore order. The child is content that his mother can handle him, that he is in good hands, and life is good again. It is essentially the same thing with God.

We need to know that he is around, we need to assure ourselves that he can withstand us. So, to refine the earlier distinction between the birth of the child and the birth of God. In the former case, we give birth to our offspring. In the latter, we give birth to our parent.

All this is not to suggest that one must not celebrate the birth of God the way one does. Who could argue that the repeated re assurances, the repeated rescues the Lord (allegedly) makes for our sake, when we need it the most, is anything but a reason to rejoice?

But the question is, how many such rescues will have to be made, how many re assurances given before we are assured? Perhaps we need to give him a break. Perhaps we need to stop testing him. After all, a mother also loses her cool with her child sometimes. How much do we really want to try his patience?

Its time to stop assuming someone will come and be our saviour. Only then can we stop making a bloody mess of our lives and of this planet. As it is, it would be better if we took care of ourselves. We wouldn't need the poor fellow to leave his own worries behind and come to our rescue.

There's enough room on the street. Its the belief that is narrow.

During the month of Shrawan, the Kawarias, in their orange and yellow clothing and brightly coloured golden, silver, pink, red, green carriers filled with Ganga-jal (water from the holy Indian river) speckle the streets of New Delhi. Their walk from the Ganga, wherever they may have encountered her, usually at Haridwar, to their village is a long one, and they usually make the pilgrimage barefoot.

Yesterday, during the morning hours, waiting for the light to turn green, I was generally looking around and taking in the happenings on the busy traffic light. And I caught sight of a few Kawarias - their slim yet strong bodies supporting large water carriers, and supported by determined feet that carried them on their long journey one step at a time- walking alongside expensive cars that were transporting men and women talking on their cellphones, to the places they make their money in. The scene was an example of the peaceful co existence of the spiritual and the material, tradition and modernity.

I smiled to myself, happy to think of my country as one where we had room for God, Ganga and .... um... Goenka.

My views changed in the evening. Its hard to smile about something when that very thing is partly responsible for creating the worst traffic jam I had been in in the entire week. The Kawarias were walking the streets, so cars were stopped so as to not cause any inconvenience to them. Why didn't the traffic police intervene? Take a guess-Try to come between a man and his God and you commit blasphemy that deserves to be punished with bus burning, and stone throwing. Who wants to get involved in such jhamelas unnecessarily? If a leper with one leg eats into a few seconds of a green light, God help him from the barrage of horns and abuses he is likely to be pelted with. But religious men? No No. Shake of the head, fingers touching the ears - How can we ask them to wait on the sidewalk till traffic stops??

Well why the hell not?! If you and I can wait for the light to turn red, why can't they? I'll tell you why. Because the sad fact is, we have this need to give special treatment to something to show our respect for it. We think we might offend the Lord if we walk beside him. So we tread with caution bordering on paranoia. Don't do this or else...Don't do that or else...

It would be so much simpler to just avoid the superficiality and obligatory displays of respect that probably don't make a difference to the supreme being anyway.

Its nice to think of an India where God and man exist side by side in a khud jiyo auron ko bhi jeene do (live and let live) fashion; where there is enough space on the road for both of them to walk side by side. It is not so nice to think of an India where one has to be pushed aside to let the other pass.

One can truly appreciate the faith and resolve of another, no doubt. But only if it doesn't cause bumps and breaks in the smooth flow of one's own (way of) life.

The Albert Camus series - Part 3

(This is an excerpt from "God's dialogue with his soul". It is magnificent.)

"G: In the end, I'm bored. Because, in point of fact, for thousands of years I have been alone. And it is useless for writers to tell me solitude makes for grandeur; I am not a writer, myself. And I cannot even lie to myself, seeing that I'm at the centre of all thought. Me, I am not an idealist. And I don't have the expedience of believing myself damned. The truth is I am bored. Omniscience, omnipotence, it's always a bit the same thing.

S: Beware, boredom breeds doubt.

G: Say, that's new. You amuse me. That would be quite a farce wouldn't it? God doubting God. In fact, if I were not sure of being God, the fabulous number of names by which men have called me could one day be lost. Time and Space have arranged to identify me in good ways and attribute me with some horrors I doubtless never committed : Zeus...Batara or hunter centre, Jupiter, Zeus...or...Huitzilopochtli or...Ahura Mazda, Indra, and even - What a farce! - Buddha, Ra, Anu or Marduk, Allah, Jehovah, and so many others. Then, as if things weren't complicated enough already, they advised me to split myself into three. And that makes me think. In all that, which is the real name? As long as it's not Huitzilopochtli. If I could choose, I'd prefer something with a good ring to it.

S: (aside) What a talker!

G: Can't you say something, you? Yes, I know, you're telling yourself I'm getting old. And, that too, makes me uneasy. Suppose this eternity were a lie. Since I can do anything, I can very well have lied. And if I think about it, there are lot of things about me that might make me doubt. So I know perfectly well that to vanquish me, it is enough for a man to be equipped with a good deal of pity. Listen, soul. I am afraid. I feel doubt insinuating its way into me.

S: .... (and with good reason, God no longer believed in his soul)

G: The evil, the doubt that tortures me. Ah! If there were someone above me that I could adore, in whom I could believe. What gets me is not being able to give myself. There is nothing before me but love. How can I give myself to something that is so inferior to me. Someone above me! For pete's sake! So I can give myself! Alas, I am God. I know very well that there is nothing above me. And I cannot even raise my eyes. Ah! What terrible odors mixed with the smell of grilled flesh. Happy ye who can believe. Happy ye who can give yourselves, can pray, sob, suffer usefully. My suffering can only be useless. Unless I am something else. Perhaps I am not God, am a man like others. Ah! I feel my pride, which hurts at the thought. What to do? What to believe? There is nothing. Ah! I am going to tell men that. I want to see them suffer too. There is nothing. You should no longer believe. You should no longer hope. I hurl at you the uncertainty of nothingness. Receive it, make a robe of it, and let the folds fall artfully. And march forward, happy to be the first ones.....

.....Overwhelmed, God murmured: My God, I have only one hope. The natives of Tierra del Fuego, at the far end of Patagonia, adore me as a great black man who prohibits evildoing and the killing of little ducklings. If they are right, I am delivered from my misery. The little ducklings will bring me peace."