Rising

Inspired again

2006-03-23T22:35:00.000Z

A cool poem coming soon...till then enjoy the trailor

When the end is near, a power shall rise
He will look like the devil, but will be a god in disguise
He will speak in riddles & mesmarize with his eyes
He is your redemption, he is your foe, your lord, your christ.

Free Will vs Destiny

2006-01-03T23:32:00.000Z

Take your pick. Every philosopher worth his salt has tried to resolve this question. Every scientist capable of spelling science has given his views on it.What do you think?

Why are you reading this blog? Is it free will or is it your destiny that you have to read it. Whichever you choose the opposite can be argued! Hen or the Egg?

Every religon has something to offer on this question but very conveniently seeking refuge with the divine somehow seems to be the answer to this question. How it is the answer, I do not know... But people seem to find it very comforting.

If we argue life is free will then life is scary and is like traversing through a jungle armed with nothing. Imagine this if you reading this blog is sheer free will and you meeting me was sheer co-incidence, then this universe is in deep and utter chaoes. Which means that your life is a set of co-incidences and is based on the whims and fancies of all other animate and inanimate thing. Essentially your free will is the residual after adjusting for a quillions of free wills which have been excercised. In sum, your free will is reactive and you are living in chaos where things happen outside of your control and your reactive free will is messing up a million other lives and so on.

If we argue life is destiny, then it is scarier. Whatever you do, you will always do what you are supposed to do. So why do? Maybe you are supposed not to do. Either way whatever you do or do not do, you were supposed to do or not do. Stupid isnt it, then why live?

I have become quite fascinated by this question and have started reading science and philisophy yet again. Chaos theory, heisenberg principle , these used to be the mantra of my good friend Arka. Maybe there lies the answer. Maybe Narada sutra will answer this or one of the sufi thoughts would have a clue. I am going to blog on these quite soon. Watch out.

You are going to read these posts. Whether you choose to or not:)

Back into posting blogs... Grieve not my readers.

The Return of the King

2005-06-06T08:03:00.000+01:00

The king has returned... I will be in India for the next month and a half relaxing and taking it easy...All of which means I can write some more...So keep watching out for this space...All my friends get in touch with me by mail or my old mobile no.ciao

The Dilemma of Justice

2005-04-13T15:57:00.000+01:00

Before I begin this blog. A clarification about my previous post “An elegy for a dream”. I have been asked by many of you, whether it is relating to something personal that happened to me lately. Much that it would disappoint a select few, it is nothing to do with any personal event that happened to. This was an extract from a novella that I had attempted writing a few years back while I was in Pune. Never got around to finishing it, but there were bits of it that I thought were good. Anyways, I have removed it now but will possibly publish more extracts from it at some point.

Alright, to this post now.

I passed my driving test and now hold a British licence. For all you souls, who think this is a mean achievement, wake up and smell the coffee. Britain is no India where a good crisp 500 bucks note would have done the trick. My test involved driving safely following all instructions for 40 minutes. Not only that but a bonnet check, three manovoeres including reverse parking, three point turn and an emergency stop. This post if following something that hit me and hit me hard yesterday just after the test. The lady who was the examiner has the discretion to pass or fail me if I make a major mistake (hitting the kerb, driving without due care, etc.) or sixteen minor mistake (improper indication, Observation, etc). Now the examiner usually expects you to follow the directions given and drive in a set route, but the problem that I have with authority manifested itself when I started following my own route. She says left, I indicate right, and take a perfect right. Now the deal is she cant fail me for not following her directions, she can fail me for not driving properly. But she has a right to get irritated and fail me citing some other flimsy excuse. In the end irritated she was, angry she was, but all she said was ‘Mr. Narasimhan I cant fail you for not following my directions, but it would have made my job hell of a lot easier if you heard me speaking, anyways congratulations, you have passed’.

I was surprised, not because she passed me, not because I drove badly, I was surprised because being an Indian I have always met people in authority making decisions based on prejudices, personal feelings and emotions, positive or negative. To see someone being absolutely fair was a surprise. It surprised me that I was surprised by fairness. 21 years in India had done that to me. Isn’t India a democracy? The national emblem says, “Only Truth shall Prevail”, shouldn’t such a land be just? Isn’t every hero in every Indian epic, fair and just, whatever the other faults. Ravana doesn’t molest Sita even though he could have. He kidnaps her but asks her permission to wed her! The Kauravas use every hook and crook to get even with the Pandavas, but read the Mahabharata carefully, Duroyodhana was a just and a fair king, his only fault was jealousy. In contemporary India, Gandhi is an example; our country came into being cloaked in the shawl of honesty, justice and truth. Fifty years since, a young man in an alien land feels surprised on meeting a just person in authority!!!

Where did we go wrong??? Did we go wrong? We did somewhere for sure. The parasite has infected so deep that all of us are unfair when given even an iota of power. When I led various teams in India a lot of my decisions were based on my likes and dislikes. I didn’t think that was unfair. I do now. The Captain of the Indian National Cricket Team follows his heart and is a successful captain, he backs players he likes. The point is “he likes”. Shouldn’t it be the players he thinks are “best suited” to fulfil the team’s goals? The examples are countless.

The test is simple, Narasimhan’s driving test. Did any man in authority take a decision fairly in favour or against with no prejudice? How many times would the answer to this question be yes in India? How bad is it that it won’t be the case too often??? When does this change to yes? I don’t have the answers, but atleast I am wise enough to ask the question. I am now prepared to find the answers.

P.S Apologies if the post is abrupt, incoherent and rough. I am stunned from yesterdays incident and have let my emotion rule again. Will give a fair account soon:)

The paradox of Dreams

2005-02-17T13:00:00.000Z

What is the greatest fear a potentially great man could have than the fear that he may yet remain ordinary at the end of his life. When he lies in his deadbed and fragments of his pasts flash through the grey remains of his brain, he sees all that he could have been? Is there a more tragic end to a man’s life? An ordinary man would not mind an ordinary life (and death). A spiritual man who has realised the futility of the cycle of life and death will not bother. A great man who achieved more than what he was worth would die with pride. But the man who could have been great, who should have been great, but for his lack of enterprise or by coincidence and fate would die a slow and a painful death.

Dreams, the stuff that differentiates the great from the “also-lived”. Following the dreams staunchly and to the end, the quality that differentiates the great from the “futily lived”. The above two reflects the three classes of people that walk this planet. There is one another but I will not talk of that class in the context of dreams.
Coming back to the three classes of people:

1) Ordinary
2) Futily lived
3) Great

The ordinary man neither dreams nor has the power to put the dream in to the machine of labour, courage and guts to churn out reality. In a lot of ways he is the nearest to the spiritual the fourth class of which I wont elaborate, the only difference being that the Spiritual doesn’t bother nor feels jealous whereas the ordinary man does and more of another man’s success.

There is however a huge gulf between the Ordinary and the other two classes. The line demarcating the second class and the third is thin and in a lot of ways public adulation. There is a great quote from a great man, “The thin line between a genius and an eccentric is success”. Both the classes have the power to dream. But the difference lies in implementing it. The combination of tenacity, confidence and luck is the critical component that marks the thin line. The second class may often have bigger and better dreams and the third class may have modest ambitions but the combination of tenacity, confidence and luck have the innate ability to transform modest dreams into great achievements.

In the rather straightforward parameters set above, tenacity and confidence is a rational way of determining success. But what about luck, it is not tangible? Is it unfair that circumstances and issues beyond ones control determines success? How can Bush Jr. sit in the same Oval Office as Lincoln when many other great men notably Martin Luther King Jr, etc have failed?

The answer to this abnormality lies in a small intangible quality which sportsman and more specifically boxers may identify with, “Guts”. The ability to rise after every fall, to take every punch and force the body beyond any natural explanation to last another round and another and another, till you win. This quality rises over all else, injustice, ill luck, and lack of ability. And every man who dreams knows that a gut is what will last him the distance. Hence, a potential great man writhes in pain when he sees his life flash past him and he sees that he has failed not because he couldn’t dream, nor because he didn’t have the ability, but because he didn’t have the guts. He allowed his body to rule his mind and quit when he shouldn’t have. That hurts. The lack of guts hurts. But hey, having guts brings more pain, only that in the end the pain is justified by success.

The Philosophy of Death

2005-02-04T15:08:00.000Z

India and Indians have always been fascinated by the philosophy of death and the objective of life. Almost every ancient scripture to modern bollywood movies, death and the purpose of life is analysed consciously or sub-consciously. This fascination reflects the inquisitive nature of Indians and Indian philosophy, which is otherwise loosely termed as Hinduism. A separate blog is required to discuss the nature of Hinduism as a philosophy (or a way of life) rather than a religion. What I strive to discuss in this post is an ancient scripture called Katha Upanishad which in a beautiful story discusses death. Of the most profound philosophical works in Indian history, Vedas and Vedantas are the most ancient, most lucid and certainly the most authentic. Having strong religious basis, the philosophical under currents are of great interest to those uninterested in the religion. The Upanishads are the most developed of the Vedantas and is a sublime commentary on the Vedas engaging in philosophical speculation about the implications of the ancient invocations, mantras and rituals recorded in the Vedas. Initially there were over two hundred Upanishads, but the philosopher Shankara only considered fifteen or so to be primary. Of the fifteen, Katha Upanishad is the one that deals exclusively on the subject of Death. Presented as a conversation between a boy by the name of Naciketas and Yama, the god of death, much concerning the Inner Nature of Man and the secret of death is elaborated.

Nachiketa hassles his father on a particularly tiring day when his father has just completed a sacrifice and presented gifts to all. Nachiketa is curious as to whom his father will give him away as he has given away everything else. On being continually harassed by his son, the father (Gautama) says to Nachiketa in anger, “ To Death I give you”. The steadfast son that he is, he immediately embarks on a trip to meet Yama (the lord of death). Yama is not at his abode when Nachiketa arrives. The young boy spends three days and three nights at Yama’s doorstep without food or water. When Yama comes back, he sees a young Brahmin boy asleep at his footsteps and immediately envisions his dedication and resolve. Pleased Yama addresses the boy:

"Since you have stayed in my house as a sacred guestfor three nights without food, I salute you, priest.May it be well with me.Therefore in return choose three gifts."

A story has been set in the background as is the case in many Indian scriptures and it is time now for the philosophical discussion. Nachiketa’s first two gifts are relatively irrelevant to our discussion here. But it is his third wish that reflects the advanced philosophical thinking at around 1500 BC when the Upanishads was presumably written. As his third gift Nachiketa asks the following question:

"There is doubt concerning people who are deceased.Some say they exist, and others say they do not exist.Being taught by you, I would know this.Of the gifts, this is the third gift."

This jolts Yama, who does not expect a young boy to be interested in the meaning of Death which in Yama’s own words:

"Even the gods of old had doubt as to this.It is not easy to understand, so subtle is this law.Choose another gift, Nachiketas.Do not press me; release me from this one."

But Nachiketa is adamant. Yama tests the boy’s resolve by tempting him with

"Choose sons and grandsons who shall live a century,many cattle, elephants, gold, and horses.Choose a great estate of landand live as many years as you want.If you think this is an equal gift,choose wealth and long life.Nachiketas, be the ruler of a great country;I will make you the enjoyer of your desires.Whatever desires are hard to get in the mortal world,request all those desires at your pleasure.Here are lovely maidens with chariots and music;these are not to be attained by anyone.Be served by these whom I give you.Nachiketas, do not ask about death."

But Nachiketa refuses all the above with a profound logic confounding us today on how the author in 1500 BC could have such a sublime way of thought:

"Transient are the things of mortals, Ender,wearing away all the vigor of their senses.Even a full life is short.Yours be the chariots; yours be the dance and song.A person cannot be satisfied with wealth.Shall we enjoy wealth when we have seen you?Shall we live so long as you are in power?This is the gift to be chosen by me.Having approached undecaying immortality,what decaying mortal on this earth below that understands,that contemplates the pleasures of beauty and enjoyment,would delight in an over-long life?This about which they doubt, Death,what there is in the great passing-on---tell us that.This gift that penetrates the mystery,no other than that does Nachiketas choose."

Herein begins the conversation between Nachiketa and Yama. I would not delve deeper into the conversation for each man’s interpretation of the conversation would be different wherein lies the beauty of this scripture. Rather than saying that this is gods will, the Katha Upanishad goes on a complex logical route to explain the transient nature of everyday human happiness and desires and the permanence of human knowledge. It is for each of you to read and realise what I have from this great scripture. It is easy to dismiss this scripture as an ancient rambling on religion, but it is so much more than that. If we could ignore all that is irrelevant and pick the true words of wisdom we would realise the subtlety of ancient Indian philosophical works. It is essentially meant to be cloaked or disguised and left open to logical analysis. It is for each of us to find the answer and that’s what makes Indian writing and the religion (I would call it philosophy) so different. There is no one answer, one destination. There are however a few paths for us to choose. Whichever we choose it is imperitive that we travel well…

When I think of it, from time to time, you could find a new path for yourself as long as it is righteous…That’s the beauty of Indian philosophy and Katha Upanishad is a shining example of that beauty.

Love in the time of...

2005-02-03T13:21:00.000Z

I am not as big a fan of Senor Marquez as Narayan or Rand’s and although I do like his 100 years of solitude and agree that it is a more difficult book to write than any other, I would rather stretch myself with a Guide or a Fountainhead. There is however one book by Senor Marquez that completely floors me- Love in the time of cholera.

I am a die hard romantic, but not in the conventional sense. While, I may not get a woman cuddly toys or fresh flowers I would most certainly walk holding hands into the sunset lost in a conversation or wait for the one I love all my life. Anyways, this is not to self-examine my romanticism nor to justify the flaws in it, this is to write about a book that I hold very dear, which I believe to be one of the most romantic books ever written and in the characters of which I can see all that is right…and wrong.

Love in the time of Cholera has a very simple storyline and some may very validly call it an old fashioned melodrama. It is all this and much more. Often in the greatest work of literature, it is the inherent simplicity of human emotions that makes a simple story immortal. Narayan had the gift and in this book Senor Marquez proves that it is possible to write an immortal book on a very simple premise.

As a young woman, Fermina Daza kept a lengthy and passionate correspondence with Florentino Ariza, who was socially her inferior, but was desperately in love with her. They became engaged through their letters, exchanged through hiding places and telegrams in code.
But one day, when Fermina Daza comes close to Florentino Ariza in the market, she feels suddenly ill and tells him it was all a mistake. Instead, she marries Dr. Juvenal Urbino, a European-educated perfectionist, who falls in love with her on a medical visit. Their tumultuous but affectionate marriage lasts over fifty years, through a civil war, cholera outbreaks and the Doctor's brief affair with a patient. Juvenal Urbino distinguishes himself by instituting policies to combat cholera. He dies, falling from a tree as he attempts to catch his pet parrot.
Florentino Ariza comes to the wake. He is now about seventy and controls a wealthy shipping operation. After the other guests leave, he approaches Fermina Daza, saying, "I have waited for this opportunity for more than half a century, to repeat to you once again my vow of eternal fidelity and ever-lasting love."

She throws him out of the house, but continues to think of him. He becomes a regular visitor. Finally, they take a boat ride together, down the rivers that are being slowly drained and poisoned, listening for the cries of the manatees. They do not return, but prepare to sail on forever.

This novel has an epic air to it and the conversations between Florentino Ariza and Fermina Daza in their old age is amazing and mature. A novel that moves across almost a lifetime reflects patience and wisdom not to mention immortal love of Florentino Ariza.

Young Florentino Ariza loves Fermina and talks of immortal love when death and age is alien to him, the fact that he honours it when he sees death all around him and is face to face with mortality reflects the illogical and inexplicable nature of love and human happiness. The fact that vows of immortal love made when young which may sound absolutely idiotic and stupid to some- may yet be honoured, much later in life when we ought to know better, in the face of the undeniable fascinates me. The superb interplay between love of the protagonists (or antagonists as you see it) and cholera is brilliant.

Each time I read Love in the time of cholera, I recognise something that we all know-The only distinction between being madly in love and mad is in the love.

My return to random ramblings

2005-02-01T11:39:00.000Z

It has been a while since I wrote. A lot of things have happened since October. I went down to India for a month’s holiday, came back and was offered a new job with a Big Four (in London), which I start later this year. To complicate things, my current employer doesn’t want me to leave and has raised the stakes (better salary, leading a bigger team, etc). And the last piece of jigsaw is an interview with a major Strategy Consulting Firm later this month. I hear you say, if this is the kind of complications- brings it on!!! But, I am clear, Big Four it is!!!

In the meantime, I have been to Vienna and Estonia (for a Ice cricket tournament!!!) and fallen in love with the latter. I think there is something very romantic about Eastern Europe. The snow, the stonewalls, the misty air, the biting frost and the song-like language, all makes one drift away from the hum dum of daily existence. I am sure it helps that Eastern Europe has the most beautiful women in the world. I am informed that Estonia in particular has the largest concentration of models per population in the world and I do not doubt it one inch. Before you think any further, I didn’t get laid in Estonia. The opportunity was there in the nightclubs and bars, but people who know me know that that’s not my style or taste. I would rather spend time speaking to an intelligent and charming lady sitting at fireside than fiddle around in a nightclub with loud music and even louder company. I am old fashioned (and boring!!!)

My trip to Vienna last Xmas was exciting as well. Stayed in a Castle at a hill that had been converted into a Hotel with a splendid view over Vienna. Went to a Concert at the Imperial Palace and indulged in some good old Mozart and Strauss. The real incident that made my trip was something more offbeat. When we were waiting for a Bus outside the Hotel, a Limo (antique Rolls Royce) drove out of it and the driver (a Santa Claus like figure who owned a whole fleet of them and chauffeured people around as a hobby) stopped the Limo is front of us and requested me to give him the opportunity to drive us into the town. In my conversation with him on the drive, I realised that he needed company and an Indian seemed exotic. It was absolutely fabulous, a trip around Vienna in a Limo with a Chauffeur, what else do I need in life??? Maybe that was my Christmas Gift. Unfortunately after he dropped us off at a Café, the Car broke down 100 metres down the road. It was my turn to return the favour; I duly helped him push the car to the edge of the road. Never once did his smile disappear or his charm frown. A good man. God Bless him.

I am back now and will start writing more often. Most probably on some ramblings which I flatter myself as philosophical.

Till then, I hope all of you had a great new year and a very merry xmas in the reverse order.

Happiness: Ayn Rand, Karl Marx and a man called Narayan

2004-09-24T22:27:00.000+01:00

Ayn Rand must be turning in her grave. To be equated with Marx in the same context will incur her wrath and god knows she had some anger in her. But much that she would hate to hear it, she and Marx were not too different, both made an assumption, a terrible assumption! They assumed that the world would be ideal if their philosphy was followed! The mistake was that their path could be only followed in an ideal world...A paradox!!!

The foundation for their philosophy, any philosophy of life is the purpose of it. What exactly do we live for is a cliche question which has been asked my every man, woman and child(to borrow Erich Segal,excellent book I must say!) at some(many) points in life. I wont attempt to go into the futility of life or the glories of it. I am not interested in understanding the origin and purpose of life. I as always will make an assumption and work my thoughts on the basis of those assumptions.

I will assume that happiness is the purpose of life. This assumption is the easiest one and although certainly not easily defensible(as all other assumptions on the purpose of life) is an assumption that many illustrious souls have made before me. So, if happiness is the purpose of life, how best do we reach it? Is not imperitive that its purpose is always met to make a life worth living?

Of the many people from Socrates and the Greek philosophers to Confucious and Kautilya , from Voltaire and Hobbs to Marx and Ayn Rand, a whole bunch of extraordinary personalities have tried to identify the purpose of life and the ways it could be realised. Most(I am tempted to say all) assume happiness as the purpose directly or indirectly of life. Although none of their arguments are irrefutable, all of them are certainly persuasive and extra ordinary. I have however always been drawn to Rand and in this attraction have also realised how much Marx was close to Rand. I know this is a controversial statement and I will come with a separate blog to put forward my arguments in that regard.

Sticking to the issue of happiness, both Marx and Rand provide paths to reach happiness. One believes that individual happiness is more important than anything else and the other believes that in the larger happiness of the Soceity lies the happiness of every man. Ultimately both are the same. Individual happiness of every man means social happiness and vice versa. But the paradox is that both the paths would only work in an ideal world.

So how do we achieve the purpose of life? That answer is provided by an unassuming author now dead who never wrote a single book on philosophy. His works were surprisingly short and always dealt with human emotions and very human and real to life charectors. His name was R.K Narayan and his contribution to philosophy would never ever be recognised except by a small minority.
What was R.K Narayan's philosophy? His philosophy was that human happiness lies in the simplicity of the emotion. There is no purpose in life but to live and happiness comes from each and every emotion. Anger, fear, victory, defeat, laughter, tears for all makes happiness even more precious and magnified. Hence for Narayan living was a penance and a life well lived a purpose. His books often deal with charectors which are grey and very real to life. Almost all of his writings are set in the fictional city of Malgudi, and are narrowly focused on the lives of relatively humble individuals, neither extremely poor nor very rich. Through their tribulations (which to the reader seems so minor but to the charectors is the centre of their life) Narayan demonstrates the simplicity of human happiness.

While he is not the most profound or hard hitting author in history, but in his own gentle, humorous, and warm ways he demonstrates all that is simple in the world and in the emotion of happiness.

Narayan is the unlikely man who wrote about the essence and purpose of life and the path to human happiness...the sad thing is, though he wrote it...it is highly unlikely that such an unassuming man realised that in his humble and simple works lied the keys to perplexing century old questions on human happiness...

Note: The Guide and Swami and Friends are R.K.Narayan's greatest work. Graham Greene and many authors of his time thought he was the greatest author in English(between 1940-1979). Although overlooked for the Nobel in 1970 for Guide(which by all counts is a great work of literature) Narayan is recognised as a brilliant author with complete mastery over language. All his works are short(150-250 pages) at the most and written in simple but beautiful prose in the true tradition of Chekov.

Loss of Innocence

2004-09-20T21:58:00.000+01:00

I was innocent once. I guess everyone is. But there is a point in life when that innocence is lost. I lost mine at a stage when I was becoming a man from a boy. It was not a momentous event, nor was it dramatic. It just happened gradually and very slowly like the arrival of rain after a cloudy day. Something very natural and expected.

By losing of innocence I do not mean a loss of my beliefs. Nor do I mean a loss of my faith in my ability. It also doesn’t mean I became a crook. It just means that the sanctity, the purity, the pristine quality every man is born with got diluted and I joined the great mass of human civilization.

Ideals became less and less feasible in the world as it is and practicality seemed more and more inviting. But given that was the case, I would like to think that the idealistic aspect of my personality has not been diluted. I am still idealistic, although I can understand someone’s point when they advice me on the utility of practical approach in the modern world. I do not despise them anymore.

So what brings about the loss of innocence? Assuming my basic assumption, that all men are innocent and they lose the innocence at some point, is true, it is a momentary desire or a complicated web of human relationships that cause this innocence to be diluted. It is difficult to gauge what would be the case if one did not lose their innocence? I cannot speak for others but I can for myself.

If I did not lose that innocence of mine, I wouldn’t be a good son or a brother or a companion. I would view every action as right or wrong. My goals, ambitions and aspirations would be my only vision and I would live only for myself. That is ideal, in an ideal world. But in a world less than ideal, an ideal man is un-ideal in himself. My innocence is diluted; hence I see my aspirations, dreams and ambitions in context of the people I live for. They(ideals) dont mean as much to me as they did earlier, because ultimately it is human happiness that counts.

Since the dilution has been to the bare minimum as far as my core self is concerned, I still retain my dream, my vision. Is that the case with everyone? For someone else the dilution may be entirely different. It may affect the core but not the exterior! What happens then?

Some don’t lose their innocence at all! Do they become an ideal man in a less than ideal world?

Everyday teaches a new lesson. Everyday there is a dilution of innocence. What is my aspiration now? I hope to be someone that strengthens someone’s innocence not dilute one’s! After all it is humans that make the less than ideal world and hence it is humans that dilute another man’s innocence. It is a chain reaction. Maybe I will be a small pause in the chain, if not a break.

Life goes on; my son will wonder the same thing as I do today. I am sure, my dad did someday. But does every son, dad and son wonder the same in differing measure? I do not know. May be that is irrelevant. Better to be a less than ideal man in a less than ideal world than an ideal man in a less than ideal world! How less is the question?

Religion and Gods

2004-09-19T20:21:00.000+01:00

I have been a reluctant but a forceful speaker whenever my opinions on religon has been sought or whenever I have felt I need to express my thoughts in order to not be seen as endorsing a view that to me seemed narrow and untrue.

I have had a chat with a few people I have met recently and " I dont profess, practice or believe in any religion" seems to be a common refrain. I do not know if this is the latest fashion. May be it is...for I do not see any logical basis for people saying that they dont profess, practice or believe in any religion. Now before you howl your protest at this statement of mine hold on for a minute and kindly read the rest of the blog.

I am not a fanatic who professes a particular religion and hence sees anyone who doesnt agree with my religeous inclination as an infidel. I myself do not profess or practice any established religion and therein lies the trouble. I am not an atheist nor am I a member of any bizzare cult. I firmly believe in god and this belief is based on my interpretation of life. My interpretation could be completely incorrect. Conversely it could be perfect. That is not the debating point. My debating point is this.

Is it possible for someone to not have a religion? It is imperitive to answer this question, I clarify what I mean by religion. One of the definition given in a popular dictionary is thus:
The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and honor are due; the feeling or expression of human love, fear, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power, whether by profession of belief, by observance of rites and ceremonies, or by the conduct of life; a system of faith and worship; a manifestation of piety;

So, the pre-requisite for having a religion is a belief in god or in a force that is superior to self(even atheist would have a god in this case because there is human interactions that may be argued as being superior to self because that determines a man's destiny). I believe in god. Which means I should have a religion. I do, but wait I said I didnt just a paragraph back? I did and thats true as well! This isnt going anywhere is it? Ok let me take a step back. I believe in god and I believe that a religion is a set of moral codes that governs each man. This set of moral code could be logical or illogical. Self-made or made by someone else. Irrespective of its origin, this set of moral code is what constitutes a religion according to me. Now I do not have a religion in the webster dictionary mode. I do not feel any fear nor do I care too much about ceremonies or rites. Hence my first asseration that I do not have a establishd religion myself. Now if the people I met meant what I mean, I do not see any logical inconsistancy. But supposing a minority of those didnt?
Does that mean that they lead a life without having a set of moral codes. Lincoln when asked what he thought of religion mentioned a man called Glenn in Indiana who had a simple theory of religion. He said, "when I do something good, I feel good and when I do something bad I feel bad and that is my religion". This sums it up. A primitive and simpler form of a religion is a man's own conscience. This is the moral code that governs him. Coming back to my debate, anyone who lives should be living by a moral code? If he is then he does follow a religion, i.e his own moral code.

My point? When someone says they dont have a religion, do they say they dont have a moral code governing them? I think they mean they dont believe in any established religion. They better mean so. Wars, conflicts, suffering would all arise because of a lack of moral code in men. My fear is what provoked this blog. Is it just fashion that people dont have a religion? Do they just mean they dont profess any established religion? Or is it the case that moral codes that govern men are slowly vanishing?

I do not know. I am merely wondering. That is after all the easier thing to do!