On Suicide

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suicide is the most basic right of all. If freedom is self-ownership, ownership over one's own life and body, then the right to end that life is the most basic of all. If others can force you to live, you do not own yourself and belong to them.

Thomas Szasz

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before you jump to conclusions and go on to suggest me to consult a psychiatrist, let me assure you, I'm not thinking of suicide. I mean, I'm thinking on suicide, not thinking of it. I'm in a perfectly healthy state of mind - I think so! Or atleast, I hope so ...

Since ages, suicide has been considered as an unethical, immoral and irresponsible act. It is condemned by most religions and philosophies - the basis of it being connected to the "sanctity" of life, how significant life is; which brings me to the question -

Why LIFE? What is its purpose?

The worst part of this question, I think, is in its answer which is, 'There is no purpose' or 'The purpose is unknown'.

All philosophies and religions take an existialist stance and accept the fact - "Life is there". With that presumption, they attempt to explain other aspects of life. Hinduism, Buddhism (and related schools of thought) consider life as pessimistic (they embraces life though). Their prime focus is on how to escape the continuous process of life and death (Samsara) and to achieve moksha (through Karma Yoga, Jnana yoga, Bhakti yoga or Raja yoga). But, they fail to justify the purpose of life in the first place - the purpose of a soul. Jainism also talks about how to free the soul from karman to escape misery, but, again, failing to address THE question. And as far as I can think, in Christianity and Islam, there's nothing but an attempt of political conquest and control over people by the "religious" community.

My question is - Who the FUCK has the right to condemn suicide when he can't justify the purpose of life?

There is not one school of thought (that I know of) which gives a justification to the very purpose of life. Probably, this is the reason why the mind creates goals and dreams as a consolation, a temporary solace.

Come to think of it, it is OK to commit suicide as long as it is productive to the society. In fact, in such cases, the purpose of life becomes suicide. There is no other possible explanation for cases of Sati (in India), Seppuku and Jigai (in Japan), ritual suicides (in India, China, and some central asian "barbaric" cultures). That's the extremity of hypocricy and materialistic nature of the society. Such a society cannot claim the right to judge the "immorality" or "irresponsibility"; atleast in this matter.

I'm not pro-suicide. I repeat - I'm not pro-suicide. I don't condemn it either. I guess my english teacher was right - An idle man's brain is devil's workshop.

The Other Side

Before getting into the real issue, let me mention the "ground statements" first:

1. There are no curses or the element of magic. They are just excuses to make-up certain failures or inherent aspects of heroes which are not accepted by the public. A Hero cannot have flaws; if he has any, he is not accepted
2. Krishna is no God, but, a mere character, at least in the context of the Mahabharata.
3. Most of us are familiar with the story of Sakuni as to why he wants a fight between the brothers. FYI, that probably is a later addition, because, that is not mentioned anywhere in the course of Mahabharata. His dice weren't magical. He probably just good at throwing the dice.
4. I'll try my best to avoid my inherent bias towards Duryodhana out of the way.

Let's begin with the ever-hot and my personal-favourite issue popularly known as Feminism. Duryodhana, Dushyasana and Co., are most infamous for ‘Draupadi Vasthrapaharana’. Most people are convinced, that particular act was responsible for the ignition of the Great War. Little do they know that the war had already begun, long before that dramatic incident; there was a great deal of rivalry ever since they were kids. Anyway, the issue here is, both the Pandavas and the Kauravas had the same attitude towards women, i.e., Objectification of Women. It's not just them; "that" society in which they were born and brought up was the same too. The question in my mind is - What gives the society the right to claim that derobing Draupadi was ethically wrong when they were silent all the while Yudhistira and Co., were placing her as a bet? According to me, both are the same. Duryodhana viewed Draupadi as an object that would heal his bruised ego. Yudhistira viewed her as an object that he'd place as a bet to satisfy his never-ending greed and to a certain extent, his ego. To an extent, there is a justification to this incident - Those were the times when women aren't supposed to laugh publicly. Moreover, you must not laugh at one's own guest when he is in an embarrassing situation; he must be comforted.

‘The Other Side’ of prominent characters of Mahabharata (order being insignificant):

• Krishna - There is no point or need for looking into his entire life. That is a different story altogether. I'd stick to the context of the Mahabharata. Simply put, he is to Pandavas as Sakuni is to the Kauravas. At least, Sakuni had more right assisting the Kauravas as he was their own mamasri. His relation to Kauravas would demand more support socially as to Krishna, being just a brother-in-law to the Pandavas. Truly speaking, he is equally close to both the parties. His behaviour is the same - reactive - as that of Sakuni's. If the ego of both brothers is Uranium-235, Krishna is the high-speed electron who was responsible for the Nuclear Fission reaction - the Great War. At the very end, sensing the possible threat from Karna, just before the war, he convinces Kunti to talk to her "son", with a motive to get him to the side of the Pandavas, that cunning jackal. (Three things I like about Krishna though - His respect for women, his convincing abilities and his strategies at war)

• Yudhistira - As mentioned above, he objectifies women. He lacks self-control, is greedy and is responsible for the fall of Bhishma (which was done in an un-ethical manner).

• Bhima - History has proven many times that mere strength can never beat thinking abilities. So is the case here. Bhima is one arrogant soul, whose ego is not less small as compared to that of Duryodhana's. The motive to seek revenge for the "Draupadi incident" is nothing but egoistic. His ego was hurt since he stood helpless only to watch his "object" getting insulted in front of everyone.

• Arjuna - He was probably a bi-sexual or a hermaphrodite. In Virataparva, this twisted "dude" spends his Agnathavasam (of a period of 1 year) as a woman. What's the necessity of that form of disguise when his other brothers hid themselves perfectly fine? (Refer point 1 in the beginning of the essay)

• Nakula, Sahadeva - There is not much description and tales attributed to these two "stallions". So I guess, there is nothing much to say. They are in the purana only because they are brothers of the "famous" Yudhistira, Bhima, and Arjuna.

• Panchali (, Panchabhartrukha) - She's is a hypocritic slut; yes, you heard me right! A SLUT!!! Either all the 5 Pandavas are impotent and could not satisfy her well and good or she is so raunchy and horny that she has a desire for Karna in her heart. Either way, she is a textbook definition of a lanja.

• Vasusena - Popularly known as Karna. The better name for him would be 'Loser'. (Refer point 1 in the beginning of the essay) He has always got a perfect reason to lose all the time. He is a man of values, a man of virtues, I agree; but, brave, and valorous - No!!! There are many instances where he could prove his valor and abilities. For instance, when Duryodhana is captured by Gandharvas (during Aranyaparva), he and Ashwatthama flee from that place, unable to fight the Gandharvas. Eventually, Pandavas had to free Duryodhana from them. (First, they try negotiation, then Arjuna single-handedly defeats the Gandharva troops, after which, he is presented an asthra from them for his valor)

• Duryodhana – An excellent administrator, a great king, good strategist, diplomatic, strategic fighter with excellent combat skills (as compared to raw beastial power of Bhima's). An unmatched arguing and convincing skills - he was able to shut everyone up all the while. Anyone could've objected him - the revered elders (Dritharasthra, Bhishma, Dronacharya, Vidura ...), his people. He did not lose the faith of his people or his allies even though he resorts to many unethical and unfair means.

The point of this entire rambling is just this. Neither of the sides has played a fair game - both of them have resorted to deceiving and immorality. Everything and everyone fall in the patches of grey. (That's probably the beauty and the negative point of Mahabharata) The war that is claimed as reason for Dharmasamsthapana by Krishna is a failed cause. It is more of an Adharmayuddam than a Dharmayuddam. Had it been the other way around, and the Kauravas had won the war, the Mahabharata would have sounded a lot different in the context of portrayal of characters. This would've been mentioned in the beginning itself, but, I've got this uncontrollable urge to convince people.

P.S: I recently realized the reason behind my bias towards Duryodhana (as a result of an argument with Mohan).

What is your God?

[This, unlike other blogs is not an effect of frustration. Proof: I've been listening to Illayaraja since morning and even as I write this]

All this of "What is God?" or "Who is God?" started when I was about 15 or 16. As always, I was wandering in my 'imaginary' (or is it real?) world when all of a sudden, a proverb that once was told by my grandfather (May his soul rest in peace) when I was a kid, struck me - "Sivudi aagnya lenidae cheemainaa kuttadu kadaa". Roughly translated it would mean, "Without Siva's (God's) consent, even an ant wouldn't bite". This might sound trivial, but, at that point, those words shook me out of my belief system and thrown me into a state of madness and chaos, from which I'm yet to recover.

The point here is, "So, if the ant bites you, it's not the fault of the ant, but of Siva (God) since, He, knowing that the ant would bite you, He let it to bite you". Let me magnify this instance, so that you and I are on the same lines.

"If I steal 100 bucks from you, it's not my fault but God's, as knowing that I have the idea of stealing from you, he wouldn't stop me (or couldn't stop me ... He is called the Almighty, isn't He?)"

"If a terrorist (Hitler, Osama, Bush, ...) decided to claim life of innocents, it's not the sin of the terrorist per se, but of God's, since knowing his (terrorist, not God) intentions, he was nothing more than a silent spectator" (Doesn't he have the least courtesy or the moral responsibility to let others know of this ... and this is the entity whom you stupid fucks pray to, in the mornings, or in some cases, only on special occasions like, festivals).

OK. Since I'm out of examples now, I stop now ... If you've got my point read on; if not, get the fuck out of here, there's not point reading this blabber.

This point, somehow got lost among my other thoughts, until my 3rd semester of B.Tech which was triggered by the fact - "How can the culture that believes in God's justice (after death) produce artifacts of social justice like Manusmrithi (Manavadharmashastra) and other to-be-followed-strictly 'law-books'?" Does this mean that the civilization has failed to make the commoners realize (or is it believe?) the power of God that they have come up with the doctrines of social punishment and social conduct. Even the logic - "Every action in current life affects the next cycle of birth and death" failed to convince the masses.

Now, comes an important issue. Most of us are familiar with the (in) justice done to Sita by (Lord) Rama. For the benifit of the ignorant, here it goes: Fearing the public judgment, Rama questions the chastity of Sita and asks her to prove herself. She goes through the ‘Agni-Parikshaa’ and comes out clean.

• If he is God, He'd somehow come up with the idea of convincing the people that Sita is unpolluted. For example, he could bring out his Maha-rupa like he did during Gitopadesha for Arjuna. That will definitely bring faith into people and remove the doubts (or) since He is an incarnation Vishnu, and Vishnu knows 'everything'; so, he knows that Ravana is under a wrath of a curse and hence cannot pollute Sita; he could have let everyone know that fact through Aakaashavaani or some other means. If an insignificant mortal like me could come up with a few alternative, why didn't (or couldn't) the Almighty come up with some justified solution? [My personal opinion: I feel that he himself was not convinced that Sita is pure. He conveniently found an excuse of 'what people might think or say' ... Why the fuck do you care? You ARE the Almighty]
• And also, note that this is the same man who would do anything for the wishes of his father (and his step-mother), but when it comes to supporting the woman who has left all her loved-ones to spend her rest of her life with him (Sita), he fails her. Now is that what God would do? Keep aside, for a second, the fact that Sita is his wife. Would God punish an innocent being for the 'greater good' of many beings? If he is God, would He not be capable of coming up with a strategy of convincing everyone? Would you accept if you were chosen for torment (by none other than God) for the benifit of man-kind? (I definitely wouldn't). At this point I would like to ask a question to all the feminists out there. Do you really consider Rama to be God? Do you think that he is an incarnation to Lord Vishnu? If the answer to either of the above questions is 'Yes', you are a disgrace to the word "Feminism".

Yeah! Yeah! I'm coming to all you 'Hare-Krishnas'. How empty you must be (inside) that you accept (Sri) Krishna to be your God? His life taught us "Fight injustice through injust means", i.e., "Mulluni mulluthone thiyyaali" [rough translation: Use a thorn to remove a thorn]. Just because a person was unjust doesn't mean you can defeat him through unjust means. No person with a conscience would accept it. Some how, it is very convenient to you people. [idhe nemo Vishnu maaya ante ...]

All of this (and a few others which I can't remember right now) lead to a strange kind of confusion. And then began the re-evaluation of the entity called "God". The result:

1. I detested the idea of God.
2. I felt that's really stupid.
3. I realised that God exists (This might come out as a shock to most of you, but, this is true. It's only that my idea of God is totally different).
4. It (God) is definitely subjective.
5. The current status - there are still a few unanswered questions, but, I guess, Hope is good thing.

I'll shut the fuck up before I turn into non-pessimistic person. A quick question though:

Who is your God?

Or rather

What is your God?

Happy B'Day, Laetitia

(An article on Laetitia Casta)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe in God, but when I see Laetitia, I might change my mind.

- Vivienne Westwood

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like Bardot, laetitia Casta has an insolent beauty with just a hint of childishness, and a feline charm that involuntarily draws the eye. Her persona conveys no sense of a prefabricated image, or of a dressed-up doll. On the contrary, much of her appeal lies in the very real, indivisual personality that she is able to project on the page.

Meeting Laetitia for an interview requires focus: It would be easy to do nothing but look ar her. We wanted, however, to find out more about this young model, who compelled British designer Vivienne Westwood to comment: "I don't believe in God, but when I see Laetitia, I might change my mind". And the renowned French photographer Dominique Issermann - another woman who is used to looking at models, and who doesn't frequently express undue enthusiasm - has called her "the most beautiful girl in the world".

In the U.S., Laetitia is beginning to be spoken of as if she were a recent manifestation of the innovative French spirit that produced the high-speed TGV trains. Ever since she was featured in the now-famous Guess campaign, "the new Briggite Bardot" has been raching up covers and contracts on both sides of the Atlantic.

In the ballroom-size booking room of the Madison agency in Paris, Veronique Tuil, the booking director, and Valerie Sarfati, a booking agent, revealed some additional insights about their protegee's evident assets: "Her freshness, her sensuality, and her figure are in sharp contrast to current standards", remarks Valerie. "To find a successor to Stephanie Seymour for the Elseve campaign, L'oreal saw hundreds of girls. It took two years to find Laetitia!"

The two women describe Laetitia as "a pearl"; a variety of which had all but vanished from fashion magazines when she began to model. perhaps a reflection of economically gloomy times, magazine pages at that time were peopled with the pale, doleful-eyed waifs who had replaced the sexy stars of the 80's.

That state of affairs, however, couldn't - and didn't - last forever. Women tend to want to see models that they can identify with as well as admire - a factor that the androgynous, asexual look of the grunge era took into little account.

While Laetitia certainly fills these requirements, one of her strengths is that she doesn't fit fashion's standard physical categories. It's not customary in this profession too see five-foot-seven-inch top models, but, paradoxically, it's precisely the lack of a couple of inches that has helped Laetitia get ahead of her beautiful colleagues. This may seem strange, but it's not entirely surprising in a world where criteria for beauty are nororiously unstable. With her relatively small stature and feminine curves, Laetitia sometimes looks like a creature from another planet next to other tall, rake-thin models - but it's a look with enormous appeal.

When Laetitia suddenly appears in the booking room, sliding on the parquet, bestowing kisses upon the small team of Madison agents, the smile on her face is like an imitation of happiness for those about to cross her path: She radiates cheerfulness.

Before anything else, she first picks up her fan mail. Some overly insistant fans, she reports, propose immediate matrimony; others are more romantic and will suggest a glass of champagne; most often, the letters are purely curious, asking questions like "Do you make a lot of money?" or "Where do you live?"

This kind of public attention has been a factor for almost of four years now, so Laetitia knows how to insulate herself from the pressure. Her agency, Madison, also helps by acting as a second family who will take care of her and provide advice. Madison knows how important Laetitia's fame is for them, but they also know that the yound model needs to be protected from the stress, fighting, and dengers of sudden limelight that has often destroyed promising talents. (The film industry, for example, has been beckoning, but will have to wait a while.)

Laetitia has another gaurdian angel - her father - who watches over her, and his two other children, with the tenderness and concern typical of a Corsican parent. He is proud of her success but always on gaurd on her behalf.

"My father came with me to my first meeting at Madison", Laetitia explains, looking delicious in her black 501 jeans, a white prada ribbon in her hair. "He trusted me, but, as he often tells me, he doesn't want anyone to hurt me. I always remember a beautiful thing he once said to me: There isn't a minute in the day that I don't think of you, that I don't fear for you. I want you to be strong, because I won't always be there".

An interview of 18-year old Casta

Q: How does it feel to be so beautiful?

A: I've never asked myself that question. It's a plus, of course, to be thought beautiful. But it didn't occur to me when I first started. I had never imagined being a model. My parents never told me that I was more beautiful than anyone else, and I could or should do this job. In any case, beauty is not really important, it's charm that counts. What's inside of you has to show through.


Q: So, on top of everything else, you like to charm people?

A: At school, I was always the one who made my friends laugh - and I was the one who got into trouble! At that time, when I was twelve or thirteen, I has a real hang-up about my nose, and I only wore jeans and shirts.


Q: You were a bit of a tomboy?

A: Yes, and it's only when I started modelling and posing for photographers that I became more reserved in my behaviour, and more feminine. That was when I started to really appreciate beautiful things. I loved changing clothes all the time!


Q: Are you crazy about clothes now?

A: Yes, changing outfits puts me in a good mood! It's like a new day. I love to shop. Not necessarily for expensive stuff: It's fun to go to sales and flea markets, and to bring back bits and pieces from different places. It creates memories.


Q: Do you travel a lot?

A: Yes, and that's the reason why I always take a few favourite items of clothing with me whereever I go. I have a pair of striped knee-length pants that I love, they're so comfortable. I'm not myself in the clothes I have to wear for photographs. I'm playing a role. But, when I get back into my own things, it's like being back at home.


Q: Is beauty care important to you?

A: My mother taught me to pay attention to all that, and to look after myself. When I travel, I always take specific products along. I like to have my things with me.


Q: So, what's in your makeup bag?

A: The products I use are not necessarily the same brand. They happen to suit my hair, or my face, and they are generally very ordinary. To remove makeup, I use a baby bath lotion, which I buy at the pharmacy. I apply it on my face with a very pure, soft cotton wool - the usual cotton pads for removing makeup literally scratch my face! My skin tends to get dry, so I apply a very light cream, by Avene. For my lips, I use a cream which contains vitamin A. Also, I always carry a spray bottle of Evian spring water.


Q: You don't use a body lotion?

A: Yes, I use one by Neutrogena. They have excellent products that are specially adapted for sensitive skin. I also always have shower gel with me wherever I go.


Q: And for your hair?

A: I prefer baby shampoo, but I change shampoos often, because I believe that you shouldn't get your hair accustomed to the same product. I mix the shampoo in my hand with a little water, and wash the roots only so that the tips don't get dry.


Q: How often do you wash your hair?

A: Every two or three days. Then I apply a conditioner, rinse it off, amd leave it to dry naturally: To avoid damaging my hair, I don't ever use a hair dryer. When my hair looks really tired, I buy shea butter and give it a "mask". I leave it on for a while, with my head wrapped in a towel, then rinse it out.


Q: You cut your hair recently. Did that take courage?

A: Well, I still can't believe that I did it! I was asked to cut it for an Elseve campaign, a very well-paid contract, which not many girls get the chance to do. So I told myself that it didn't matter, and that it would grow back. When I got home afterwards, though, I wasn't happy at all; it felt so strange not to be able to run my fingers through the hair. And the next day, when I woke up and remembered, my heart gave a little squeeze. It felt as if a part of me had been cut away. But the hair is growing back, and it's a change.


Q: Are you disciplined about what you eat?

A: Yes, in that I believe in sitting at the table and eating everything, like everybody else! I enjoy eating for the sake of eating. I travel all the time, and it's obvious that how you eat is important: It gives you energy and strength, and helps to prevent you from getting sick! The girls who don't eat are always tired. I eat whenever I'm hungry or whenever I feel like it.


Q: Do you eat specific kinds of food?

A: No, I live with my parents, and have a younger sister and a twenty-one-year-old brother. We're all at the table together, so I can't help but eat like them. Mealtimes are occasions to relax and be with family.


Q: What's your favourite dish?

A: I like everything - vegetables, fish, meat - although I'm not crazy about red meat. I love cake and cookies. I adore rice pudding with custard, which my mother makes. She also makes caramel custard - delicious!


Q: Cakes and cookies aren't a usual diet for a top model.

A: I'm only eighteen. Why should I make myself miserable? Little by little I'll pay more attention. But I have a round body anyway - I've always been curvy. We'll see later...


Q: Do you exercise?

A: I jog from time to time, and I walk a lot, which gives me energy for travelling. I also sleep a lot. But, actually, I'm quite hardworking. I can sleep until noon, but when I'm on a shot, I can get up at 4 A.M. and stay up long past midnight.


Q: I'm sure that there are lot of girls who want to look like you. What about you? Did you ever identify with someone famous?

A: Real beauty is to be true to oneself. That's what makes me feel good. There are lots of women, though, whom I adore - like Brigitte Bardot in her early years. What I admire is that when she first started, she truly created an image of her own - what she did in her time was really daring! I haven't ever seen her in "And God Created Woman", but I've seen the photographs, and they are gorgeous! I also like Frida Kahlo for her personality and her courage. Both those women have real style, and lots of temperament!


Q: Like Brigitte Bardot, you're very sexy. You have a fantastic bust!

A: I tell people that my breasts are "Made in Normandy", from butter and creme fraiche! [laughs]


Q: How do you feel like showing them in photographs?

A: It doesn't bother me. Nudity is a natural state. it's when you hide your body that the whole issue becomes vulgar. We should be free with our bodies and be responsible. It sounds easy for me to say that, but I have flaws, like everyone else.


Q: What flaws?

A: I have lots. My teeth, for example, aren't perfect. And my feet look like little sausages! But I can live with that! [laughs]


Q: How do you feel about cosmetic surgery?

A: I'm not in favour of it at all. I would think that it's like a foreign body in your own. The best thing is to remain how you are. Nothing is more beautiful that what is natural. And beauty never belongs to anyone anyway, it passes.


Q: That's a nice way of putting it.

A: It's true though. Beauty comes and goes. Sometimes, you're in love, and after you've made love, you are very beautiful. But those are only transient moments. That's life.


Q: Would you stop everything you're going to have a baby?

A: Yes. If having a child meant leaving it with a nanny while I travelled, I wouldn't want to have one. A child isn't a toy!


Q: So there will be little Laetitias?

A: Yes, and little Napoleons! [laughs] I'd like to have a first child while I'm yound, and my last one somewhat later. Like my mother: She had my sister when she was thirty-six. And I'd like to have three or four kids, because I adore them. 've always known that I was made to have children. To be able to have a child is a great piece of luck. It's so beautiful - a child with a person you love.

How much of what we believe, is correct?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

- Voltaire

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How much of what we believe, is correct? Is what laid down in our sacred texts and books of history authentic? Isn't there a possibility that the knowledge imparted by our elders (parents, teachers ...) is untrue? Over the past few months, there are a few things that I've come across, which made me restless to some extent.

• § Several rumours, which actually were not true, have served as a fuel during the Gujarat riots, finally leaving behind human loss, monetary loss, psychological torment and distress, and a terrified image (Source: The Indians by Sudhir Kakar and Katharina Kakar). Let us, for a second, overlook on this case, since these are the acts of (during) disturbance (Just to be clear, "being in shock" does not justify the horrible acts of violence). But, what about the following cases?

• § Let me put aside, the cynical mind of mine and consider that Bhagavad-Gita was indeed sung by the Lord Krishna during the mighty war; about 30 to 40 percent of the latest Song of the Lord is a later addition, according to the linguists and other expert analysts, whose criteria of evaluation is the choice of words, phrases, analysis of the script and the language, etc ... (Forgot the source to this piece of information).

• § Even a below-averaged, drunk, 5th standard boy (or girl, whatever) would be able to point out the anomalies, contradictions, and horrendous rules that had to be followed during the Vedic and post-Vedic era, as per the Manavadharmashastra, popular as the Manusmriti. More that 50 percent (54.786 to be precise) of the verses, i.e., 1471 of 2685 verses are later additions and modifications (Source: Wikipedia, The Laws of Manu), some of them being appended almost as late as the 11^th or 12^th C.E.

• § The 1998-99 victorious BJP government comes up with the ingenious initiative of "Inventing the Past" (Source: The Argumentative Indian by Amartya Sen). This NCERT-BJP joint venture was responsible for modification (in some cases, hiding vital information, which is even more horrible) of some of the key facts in history, just because they were in conflict the Hindu belief-system. The government however apologized for its 'mistakes' and promised to correct them immediately (of course, after the intervention of some of the historians).

• § And finally, coming to the point which started all of this in my mind – Everyone is aware of the three monkeys of the Mahatma and what they signify (I’ve been told by my parents and teachers that they meant – chedu choododdu, chedu vinoddu, chedu maatlaadoddu). Well, it was not until my B. Tech 3^rd year that I knew where the origin of the “four” monkeys was from and what they actually meant. Let me first describe the four monkeys to get a clear picture. The first monkey covers its eyes, the second covering its ears, the third its mouth and the last one covering its genitals. This symbol was created by a Zen monk (sometime around the 5^th or 6^th C.E, I think) to explain his students of the postulate – “One MUST have in his control of his sight, of what he listens, of what he speaks and finally, of his sexual energy". It has been, very conveniently vandalized, and put in front of us, the Indians, by none other that what we worship as the Mahatma. The difference in what they originally mean and what they do now is that of the earth and the sky (what we Hyderabadis call, Zameen-Aasmaan kaa pharak). Another interesting point to be noticed here is the disappearance of the fourth monkey. I don’t know why Gandhi decided to leave the fourth one; but, according to some interpreters, Gandhi might’ve dropped it purposely to avoid mass hysteria and fearing that people might not accept the symbols with their heart (This is an irony considering that this is the same man who prophesized that sex should be condoned and condemned, except of course, for procreation).

Having said all this, the questions that arise in my mind are:

1. What about the other 50% of Manusmriti or 60-70% of Bhagavad-Gita? How correct and reliable is it?
2. Is there a way to evaluate or assess the accuracy and correctness of the information we get from our 'reliable' sources? If so, how accurate is that estimate?
3. What can be constituted as a reliable source?
4. Can we just put the burden entirely on the elements like Faith, Trust, Belief, Hope ... and be done with it?
5. Shouldn’t the people be able to decide what to choose and what not to choose, what to prefer and what not to prefer, and finally what to ignore and what to consider. Isn't why it is called the Democracy?

Season of Filth

It is said that when all the sounds (I'd prefer to call them noices) in the world go mute, there is just one sound that reverberates everywhere, the sound of You-Know-Who, the powerful sound of Aum.It is supposed to be the answer to everything, which has been the quest of countless intellectuals. But, I don't think anyone ever has heard (and anyone will ever hear) it at this time of the year.

First reason being, how ever hard you try and how much successful you are in avoiding to listen to all the other sounds, it's really hard to ignore certain sounds, especially this time of the year. You guys haven't figured it out have you! You are sooo ...! It's the fuck-festival, people (sometimes, gently referred to as the Season of Love), for the entire kingdom of animalia. It's when all moving living-beings decide to hump their respective counterparts.

Second reason - Let's just assume, with utter difficulty, you've managed to shut those (above mentioned) sounds too. Now lies the final hurdle.

BUZZZzzz...

The aftermath of the J-P-H (Jump, Pump and Hump) Trilogy is the unbearable buzzing of musqitoes, flies, and what not (micro, small, medium, large, Xtra large - available in all sizes and shapes) around you! Where ever you go, they are already there ... waiting to pester you. That's not all. Now that the world is full of insects, it's party-time for Yucks, a.K.a, Lizards. You-know-who has proved his all-'mighty'ness again! Forget the ultimate motive; with the shit like this around, I don't think anyone would be successful in doing anything.

One question still remains! Why is that all that is beautiful and wonderful become extinct and why only the filthiest of the creatures (cockroaches, lizards, mosquitoes, flies, rats, men) survive??!!

See...! I can be optimistic too.

Colours in the Air!

I Hate Holi!

Many of my colleagues' faces turned red when I told'em that. Was it holi already? It's still friday right! - I wondered. Now, the previously peaceful (dead, actually) office has suddenly turned into a parliament house in session. I've claimed that it's a meaningless celebration. The furious and the frustrated opened up wikipedia to know more about the 'Festival of Colours' so that they could shut my god-forbidden mouth (you can do the same, by the way). So, this is why we supposedly celebrate holi:

Hiranyakashyap tries to kill his son in many ways - bitten by snakes, trampled by elephants, thrown from a cliff - you name it and it's there. But, our little hero wouldn't just die. He saved by the aLMIGHTY over and over again. Frustrated by this, our villan "ordered young Prahlad to sit on a pyre on the lap of his sister, Holika, who could not die by fire". Wait! Wait! Wait! This is not the end. This is not a tragedy remember! Didn't you know that "Good always wins over Evil"? So, magically, Prahlad survives (like he did the last time) and his sister, The-Evil-Bitch dies. And hence we celebrate Holi. "Truimph of Good over Evil" as my colleagues would yell out in the air!

Back from the little lesson. My point here is this - Snakes, elephants, cliff, holika etc ... are all means and tools employed by Evil (Hiranyakashyap) to kill the Good (The Little Hero of our story, Prahlad). So, shouldn't the real celebration, as we call it, start when the real Evil dies (and not the tools). There is no significance to the day when Hiranyakashyap is ripped open by Lord Narasimha. What the Fuck! And what the deal with colours anyway? I don't remember the significance of any colour in the above mentioned story. From where the fuck did the colours creep in our little celebration? If at all there is a celebration, we should start burning whatever or whoever is evil (like Me, for instance) instead of crapping up all the streets, houses, walls, faces, arms, legs, boobs (in case of females, and a few males), and dicks (in case of males and hermophrodites). OK! For a second, let's agree that the death of Holika is meaningful. Going by that logic, shouldn't we celebrate each and every time when Hiranyakashyap's wretched plots failed? Even those are truimph of good over evil.

I think, all this has been started by some fucked-up psycho. And the rest, the senseless, pathetic bastards they are, decide to associate this shit with myth (since, whatever they do should have a purpose ... I don't think they did a good job anyway. Do you??!!).

You think there only one stupid story to this, but, you're wrong my friend. There another brilliant (Oops, a typo! stupid, the word is stupid) story. Now, this involves the two famous characters from the pages of mythology - Radha and Krishna. And hence, this shit is not only the "Festival of Colours" but also, the "Festival of Love". Here's the story:

One day, Radha playfully teases Krishna of his complexion. Deeply hurt, Krishna, the momma's boy he is, runs and tells his mother (Now, kids! Do not laugh. Remember, this is the same Govardhanagiridhari, the cool dude who lifts and balances a big mountain on his little finger). Intelligently, the mother, applies colour on Radha and Co., who were messing up with our hero's head. And, all this happens in spring, the season of love.

There you go! We celebrate this festival every year to commemorate Krishna's inferioty complex. Satisfied?? So am I!

Enough with all this shit. I'm just thinking too much to convince the world, don't you think! You want a simple and deadly reason? Check out the 'Health Hazard' section of the "Holi" page in Wikipedia. Check out which colour brings which disease this spring!

Happy Holi everyone!

Am I right ?

I believe that mythology is the sub-conscious of a culture. Having said that, I'd like to focus on a particular fantasy which, I think, we as Hindus have. Why is polygamy not uncommon among our gods? Be it Siva, or Vishnu, or Krishna, or Vinayaka, or Karthikeya, or Surya, or Chandra, and many other insignificant gods. This pattern is also seen in most of the prominent male characters of the Mahabharata. We have many of our heroes in a polygamous relationship because, we (males) have a desire of being in one. However, this is hardly seen anywhere in the female characters (except Draupadi).

Interestingly, all the female characters, except Panchaali, seem to be contended with just one. Is it really! Let's go through this in detail, shall we? The polyandrous situation in which Draupadi was in, was not a normal one in the existing culture also. Polygamy was allowed because it served a purpose and polyandry was discouraged because it posed a danger to society. Ancient India was characterized by frequent wars. Men were regularly killed in battle, and hence the women outnumbered men. Polygamy was hence essential because it provided safety for the extra number of women, whereas polyandry would only make the situation worse. Most of the cultures in India at that time were patrilineal and it was essential to know who the child's father was for the continuation of the family. This would be possible in polygamy, unlike polyandry. It is basically to ensure the link between the father and the child.

And hence, the idea of woman having multiple partners has been sub-consciously being eliminated from their minds whereas the 'fetish' of a man having more than one (female) partner remained. Subsequently, this is reflected in our mythological characters. This is ironical, considering women being capable of enjoying multiple orgasms and we (men) incapable of that. Going by that, polyandry should also come into existence along with polygamy (since, there are no more wars that kill only men). Now, that's up to the contemporary 'feminists' to decide whether they want equal grounds in this aspect.

[Note: Draupadi was not exactly in an polyandrous situation. All her husbands except Yudhistir are married to other women (Arjuna having the record of maintaining most number of wives at the same time - according to my knowledge, 7). So, the situation in the palace of Indraprastha would have been like a celestial orgy.]

Coming back to my point, my concern is whether I'm on the right lines with respect to this sub-conscious (or unconscious?) fetish of ours? I'm not sure of this. All this is a result of a few observations I've made and some application of my reasoning. Google and Wikipedia failed to give me any sort of clues on this subject. Any comments or flaws or pointers on this is highly entertained.

Use 'em Carefully

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before and after a word has been uttered, both the sender and recipient will no longer be in the same state. This change is permanent. That's the power of a word.

- Excerpts from the book, "The Ashwamedha" by Subash Kak

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It all started when I wanted to apologize (sincerely, with all my heart) to a person. The first (pathetic) word that came out of my mouth was 'Sorry!'. But, he wouldn't understand that since he did not know english at all, not even a word of it. The last and only resort I had was the word 'ksHamincHandi!' (roughly and vaguely translated to common english, it would mean 'Sorry!'). A strange thing happened. It was on the tip of my tongue, yet, it wasn't coming out. I wanted to, really, I do, but I couldn't.

Why? Why? Why the F**K??!!

I stormed out of that place, all frustrated and on top of it, confused (note that I did not apologize yet - I had my own problems to take care of). For hours, I was wondering why I could not do it. And then, it struck me, like a lightning! The first thing I did - went straight to the person and was able to apologize. Now that I'm done, allow me to share with you the reason ...

To err is human, but using that as excuse has become a habit. So, the word that comes handy to everyone (that includes me) and every occasion is 'Sorry'. It's like we make mistakes just to use the "S" word. We've systematically murdered the bhava, the soul of the word 'Sorry' because of the 'context-free' and hap-hazard use. One advantage of the unfortunate influence of english over regional languages - We seldom use the words like 'ksHamincHandi!', 'maaF keejiye!' and so on. And hence, the very soul of such words is tremendously powerful and still surviving. I've not been able to cope up with its power (if I may say so) and therefore found it difficult for use.

Another Instance (Warning!!! Parental Advisory. Keep your children away from the following content!). By now, every living soul (that knows me directly or indirectly) is aware of my boothu-purAna. Very rarely would you find a sentence (that comes out of my mouth) which doesn't contain the you-know-what words. Again, because of the 'context-free' use, the words like 'mAdarcHod', 'beHncHod', 'Maa-ki-cHut', 'loude-ke-baal', 'picchi pooka', 'erri pooka', 'lanja pooka', 'mOfO', etc ... (assuming everyone is aware of the meaning of these words, I see no need for any translation). Anyway, to let go of my frustration on Ajit (name changed :P), I used all (and even more) of the above mentioned words. Yet, the anger did not die. Then, 'Mother Fucker!!' and 'Son of a Fucking Whore!!!' came to my rescue. That would do! You see, phrases like 'Mother Fucker!!', 'Son of a Fucking Whore!!!' ... are not used very frequently which is why their effect is intense and long lasting.

If you do not believe me, you can try it out yourself. Try any of the following with anyone you prefer (again, depending on the context) -

1. ksHamincHandi!
2. maaF keejiye!
3. Mother Fucker!!
4. Son of a Fucking Whore!!!

aaaHHHH! Now that you're done with the above experiment, you'd now believe me now, wouldn't you? I guess I'm trying to say - Please use your words carefully. Do not make zombies of sHabda by separating the bhava from them. After all, they are the medium of communication. Let's not disrupt that. Of course, I'll also keep that in mind. I know that's very difficult, but, let us give it a try. Shall We!

P.S: This is the very reason that I like songs with good lyrics AND books of authors like Sudhir Kakar, A.K. Ramanujam, Noam Chomsky, Wendy Doniger, etc... AND lectures and talks given by Ganesh Devy, Vishwajit Pandya, Aditi Nath Sarkar (they give power to the words by using them accurately along with the right expression and timing).

Hunt Down (and Kill) a Black Pussy

Hmm ... Where to begin? I've been staring at the monitor for the past 10 minutes at this point to figure out a way to start and end my story. Admitting (finally) that I'm not a creative ass, and after consoling myself, let me just put down the story as it happened.

As usual, I got up at 6 (AM), got ready for gym (ya ya ... I too want to become dard-e-disco type of a guy) and started off. I've travelled for 3kms and that's when I realised that I forgot my shoes. Cursing myself and my luck, I turned back to get my shoes. I started (again) after making sure that I did not miss anything now. My speedometer was reading 85 (kmph) when a miracle happened.

SPPLAAAATTTTTT!!!

A cat, not a regular one, but a black skinny one decides to end its life (probably, it has got problems) and falls under the speedy 150cc. Hey! I could not help it. It freaking foggy out here at 6:30 and you cannot see ten meters ahead of you. In spite of my father's many many warnings, I did not even do the vAhana pUja (you know, because, it's stupid and I don't want all crap put on my brand new bike). On top of that, now, I killed a cat (that too, a black one) with my bike. Now I begin to worry what could happen to my bike, or me, for that matter (After all, I was the black-cat-murderer).

Ask the people who know me well and they'll tell you (for sure) I'm not the kind of guy who believes in all 'this' crap. But, a time comes when you begin to doubt your logic and belief (at least, if you're in a black-cat-killing scenario). I got fed up of waiting for terrible thing to happen for the past two days and I give up. On the contrary, quite a few good things have happened. Till date, I never used to complete my work on time. I was able to complete the 'hectic' work that has been assigned to me in just a hour and half. I ignored this 'good' thing assuring myself that it might be just coincidence. The next incident changed my view-point entirely. I've been trying really hard to get the permanent registration (of my bike) done since a month and half probably. Something or the other prevents from that to happen. If it's not me in the first place (I'm a busy person), it's the availability of my agent. If it's not the availability of the agent, it's a government holiday or a second saturday or some fucking state holiday. Finally, the (seemingly) ever-postponing event of my bike registration is over. And guess what my number is. KA 09 EM 3000 ... Can you fucking believe it? With that, I'm convinced!!! All these good things are happening because something happened out of the normal. What could that be, I asked myself. Aahhh Yes! All of this happened because I killed a black pussy.

After this experience, my advice to you - Hunt down and kill a black pussy. Probably one thing might be clear. Is this just some coincidence that happened just for me or can we take for a fact that killing a black cat will bring us good luck. Then we might be able to change the popular idiom in telugu that goes - "nakka toka tokkaava ... anni ilaa kalisivastunnayi!"(translation: Did you stamp a fox's tail? Everything is in your favour!). From now on, it shall be (at least to me) - "nalla pilli ni champaava ... kaalam ilaa kalisivastundi" (translation: Did you happen to kill a black cat? The fate is in your favour!)

Let's celebrate the next time we fart !!!

My colleague (from work) and I were talking about festivals (on Sankranthi) when all of a sudden, a question struck my mind. Why the fuck do we celebrate the New Year (I mean, Jan 1st)? It's just stupid!!! Do we celebrate a day's beginning? or a month's beginning? Then why the hell do we celebrate an year's beginning? It's just a new year. Come to think of it, it has no significance at all. It makes more sense to celebrate 1st of April (New Financial Year) or June 15th or 16th (New Academic Year). At least there's some significance attached to those days. After pondering over it for a few minutes, the only possible rational explanation that I got (with a little help from Rakesh) was that it's a kind of an end (and subsequently, a beginning) of a considerable time. Is that really a valid reason to celebrate about??!! Common on ... it's even more meaningful to celebrate the day that comes once in four years (29th of Feb) or the end of a century or a millennium. It's the stuff like this which makes me think - How can people be so stupid? I've got an idea. Why don't we celebrate the next time we fart or whenever we encounter a dead rat!!! It's stuff like this which takes out the meaning and purpose of a celebration.

Fantastic Fathers

Why do fathers behave in 'the way' they do? Why has been always (at least, most of the time), considerable (emotional) gap between a father and a son. I think this is the question that has been in our mind ever since, you know, probably, the time we've started thinking. At least, that was my case. Sudhir Kakar in his book, The Indians, puts the answer to this question (as usual) in simple words.

... A traditional father operates under the logic of the joint family. This demands that in order to prevent the building up of nuclear cells within the family that can destroy its cohesion, a father be restrained in the presence of his own child and divide his interest and support equally among his own and his brothers' children. Moreover, as we shall see later in the chapter on sexuality, many a young father was embarrassed to hold his infant child in front of older family members since this fruit of his loins was clear evidence of activity in that particular region.

...
...

Another ideology impinging on traditional fathers in India is of a gender-based dichotomy in parental roles and obligations. Playing with or taking care of their infants is not what fathers do, their major roles lies in the disciplining of the child. As a north-Indian proverb, addresses to men, pithily puts it: 'Treat a son like a king for the first five years, like a slave for the next ten years and like a friend thereafter.'
Of course, behind the requisite facade of aloofness and impartiality, a traditional Indian father may be struggling to express his love for his son. Fatherly love is no less strong in India than in other societies. ... (pg: 22-23,The Indians)

So, if 'this' is the dynamics between you and your father, do NOT worry (like i used to). It just means that you are the luckiest son (your father being an IDEAL father).

P.S: Thanks, potu, for the title.

P.P.S: If you're into books, I'd recommend you to get hold of a copy of 'The Indians' soon. It's one of the best books that I've read till now. Kakar tries to give an identity to 'The Indian' through the aspects of Caste, Sexuality, Indian world-view, Sacrad texts, Food and Health etc ..

(Non) Vegetarianism

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most vegetarians look so much like the food they eat that they can be classified as cannibals.
- Finley Peter Dunne
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, this blog is dedicated to all the vegetarians (and pseudo-vegetarians as well). While reading the usual shit, I've come across a few points through which I'd try and justify why Non-Vegetarianism is not a sin. I've taken some of the points from the book, "The Laws of Manu" (FYI). It's a really good book, I mean, really good.

Since childhood, whenever I came across a 'vegetarian', I used to ask the question, "Why don't you eat meat?". Some say, "It's a sin!"; some say, "I don't know, my fathers don't eat it, so I don't". However, the most common answer is: "How can anyone be so cruel? We do not do anything that is violent". The basis of 'not eating meat' is Violence (himsa).

Though, we all know what himsa is (hopefully), let me define the word anyway, so that it helps me in my argument. Himsa, literally means, "the desire to inflict injury". Eating and killing are sides of the same coin. You must kill (the lower animals in the food chain) in order to survive. It's the law of the nature, in the common jargon called, "the law of the fishes", where a big fish eats a small fish and a bigger fish eats the big fish. So, I wonder, how can it (killing for the purpose of eating) be classified as himsa? How can something that is natural be wrong? It's a matter of survival. Manu seems to agree with me too. He says:

Those who do not move are the food of those that move and those that have no fangs are the food of those with fangs; Those that have no hands are the food of those with hands; and cowards are the food of the Brave. (Manu 5:29)

Our (hindu) sacrad texts also reveal the same fact. "Meat is indeed the best kind of food" (11.7.1.3, Satapatha Brahmana). In the pre-vedic and the vedic times, even the brahmins used to eat meat. So, if you think about it, it seems that this idea (Vegetarianism) has been induced into our minds. How did that happen? When did that happen?

Everything was going well until two religions (philosophies rather) - Buddhism and Jainism - were gradually gaining (religious and social) power in the society. The so-called 'non-violent' principles (their concept of non-violence is flawed as well. I'll try to justify that in an other blog) of these religions posed a threat and challenged the assumptions of vedism. So, our (again, hindu) intellectuals came up with a solution. By then, the brahmins were already a superior sect. So, they claimed that they would no longer 'harm' the innocent beings. Since they were dhvijottamas (meaning, best of the twice-born), anything they would do also becomes a symbol of purity. Thus, not eating meat became a symbol of purity and non-violence.

Adhii storyy ... inkendi! katha kanchiki, manamintiki!

P.S : Happy New Year. Hoping that you'd eat a lot of Non-Veg this year.