Let us bring Him down
Let us talk nonsense ' and justify it
I want to settle this once and for all. For the first time in my blogging experience, I am really angry with my fellow bloggers
This blogosphere is truly liberating. It gives us a space which in real life is in a crunch. It gives us learning from unbiased opinion, when in real life most of what we get is done in self-interest. It gives us an opportunity to share our innermost views, complains, and opinion. There are no sacred cows. We are free to write on anything and everything that we wish to. But don't we bloggers have any principles? Are we so disenchanted with the ethical boundaries in our real lives that we hold none in this virtual life?
I have seen many of us writing our opinion on Gods, come they from any religion. And what kind of logic? The most unfortunate part is that they are based on references that are unreliable and imaginative in my opinion.
Link from my past
When I wrote about why I loved Ram or exactly what I saw in a picture that showed Ram, Sita and Lakshman, I never imagined what I was getting into. How happy I was to post that! And then the hell broke loose.
In the days to follow, I got at least four persons who objected to my part of writing when I wrote Ram was a good husband.
I follow it up with all of them. I wanted to understand why they hated him. But they won't reply. I remember two of them said, "I just hate Ram". One of them was kind enough to accept that she is so hateful against Ram that she didn't even read any logic in his favour. And after that she also didn't reply. None of them replied.
There, my friends, our bloggers' unwritten code was broken. There is no harm in registering our concerns, but to pass a verdict without an explanation is the same thing that many of us object to ' that Ram didn't say a thing to Sita when he left her.
The hell keeps breaking loose. One of us will read some highly creative lesser-known poet who imagined near-pornographic details about Krishna-Radha or any other revered character from the epics. And you will post it there, and will go on to justify how points made by you were 'based on facts and books', while whatever I say comes as an 'emotional' response. I take it in positive spirits.
But for how long?
Bit by bit and character by character, you will go on writing anything that ran through any poet's mind sometime. And you will justify all that because they are based on 'facts'! As if those poets had seen them having sex. Or had witnessed everything on their close circuit cameras!
Why do we write about the things that we don't understand; and the things which are sure to hurt others?
What I discovered
The best part of blogging is that it gives you opportunities to experiment with thoughts and ideas. And you get to contribute something knowing that you won't get anything in return. That is the best part ' doing something without an expectation of returns ' the ultimate message of Karma.
Throughout my blogging experience, I have reached many of conclusions. I have shared some of these with you:
1. Never judge a person by his/her 'one' action.
2. Don't accuse someone who is not there to defend him/herself.
3. In case of confusion, remain conservative.
4. Hate the deed, not the doer.
5. It depends on the way we think. There are mirrors-mirrors everywhere.
If anyone followed these principles, s/he won't have written wrong about all that I described in the beginning.
Never judge a person by his/her 'one' action: A principle which makes me look out if there were some more dimensions containing some other truths. Most of what we see is not the complete picture. We should not judge any person by his/her single deed. Put his other past actions into perspective, and then judge him looking at the larger picture. (While defending that Ram loved Sita, I asked if they can show me one more event, other than the separation part, in Ram's life where he was disrespectful to Sita; and I didn't get a reply.)
Don't accuse someone who is not there to defend him/herself: This principle may give many of them the benefit of doubt. But the least respect that I can show towards their soul is to leave them in peace after they have left their bodies. That is only ethical, isn't it?
In case of confusion, remain conservative: I learnt this principle in financial management, but dragged it into real life. Many a times, it pays to remain conservative when we are in doubt. 'Conservation' respects the time that the world has spent in developing a theory. If I don't have sufficient proof, I would rather not form an opinion, than to try destroying it only to discover later on that I was a fool, and I can't reverse it.
Hate the deed, not the doer: This statement by Gandhi ji, is one of my favourite philosophies. I hate the way Ram deserted Sita without talking with her about anything, I hate the way they asked Sita to appear for the examination for her chastity; but I don't hate Ram who did it and I don't hate the people who did it. Hating people is like entering into mud to get a clean lotus flower. Hating their wrong deeds makes me learn something; and will inspire me not to do that myself. Hating the 'person' will make me see him 'down', but I can still do the same things he did, because I will justify them on some other ground. Hating people is so selfish ' all that we get from the hatred is a self-gratifying feeling of seeing others down. But from hating the deeds instead, we get an inspiration of not doing anything like that, ever. And that is what is reasonable.
It depends on the way we think: There are mirrors-mirrors everywhere. Someone said, it depends on which side of the door you are standing. Because, then the whole perspective changes. From the same events and circumstances, we see two different people making two very different conclusions. Or taking two very different lessons. It depends on which plane we are thinking on. I discovered this logic a hard way. And I always keep this in mind.
Following these five principles makes me live in peace with the facts which make some of us read some diverse writings about the Gods and their 'girl-friends' for example.
If our readings lead us to hate others, isn't it better to be an illiterate? If our understanding poetry lead us to point fingers on others' characters, isn't it better to be a naïve?
Kabir said this long time back:
Pothi padh padh jag mua,
Pandit bhaya na koi,
Dhai aakhar prem ka,
Padhe jo pandit hoi.
(The world doesn't become 'learned' even if they keep reading books till their graves. But those who understand the two and a half letters of love ('prem' in Devnagari script consists of 2.5 letters), are the real 'learned'.)
(Kumar Rahul Tiwary)