I got a comment asking 'what is the whole point that I am trying to convey ?' So, I have made a little addendum.
I just thought of combining previous two posts (one about sporting a naamam/kudumi and other about a secular person saying "one should be good more than being religious"). If we thoroughly analyze the posts, they both convey the same thing - about an average person in our society evaluating the other based on the person's culture/religion etc. Before asking why should we do such an evaluation, lemme tell you one thing. I am first of all not speaking relatively at all. By this I mean, I believe in some being which is apart from good and bad, virtue and vice. From the stand point of such a being the act of murder and the act of generous help mean all the same. It doesn't have any double standards that we mortals have. And also I am addressing to only those people who believe in such a being (for example, a theist secularist). You may call such a being as God, Christ, Perfection Absolute, Goodness Absolute or anything one wants to call. From the stand point of such a thing, nothing is relative and everything will be clear in its own terms. So, if we try to view from a higher pedestal, there should be no relativeness and everything should appeal the same thing. Being religious will be same as being secular. Sporting a naamam will be same as not sporting a naamam. No differences. If everyone tries to view or atleast attempts to view then harmony naturally sets in. No differences will be there. I know this is an old wine, but it'll be good to drink as long as IT EXISTS.
So why should we evaluate a person on his outlooks/culture if we believe in such a being ? Doesn't this contradict with our own notion of having an absolute. I have observed that in the US people never evaluate a person by what he/she sports.
I just thought of combining previous two posts (one about sporting a naamam/kudumi and other about a secular person saying "one should be good more than being religious"). If we thoroughly analyze the posts, they both convey the same thing - about an average person in our society evaluating the other based on the person's culture/religion etc. Before asking why should we do such an evaluation, lemme tell you one thing. I am first of all not speaking relatively at all. By this I mean, I believe in some being which is apart from good and bad, virtue and vice. From the stand point of such a being the act of murder and the act of generous help mean all the same. It doesn't have any double standards that we mortals have. And also I am addressing to only those people who believe in such a being (for example, a theist secularist). You may call such a being as God, Christ, Perfection Absolute, Goodness Absolute or anything one wants to call. From the stand point of such a thing, nothing is relative and everything will be clear in its own terms. So, if we try to view from a higher pedestal, there should be no relativeness and everything should appeal the same thing. Being religious will be same as being secular. Sporting a naamam will be same as not sporting a naamam. No differences. If everyone tries to view or atleast attempts to view then harmony naturally sets in. No differences will be there. I know this is an old wine, but it'll be good to drink as long as IT EXISTS.
So why should we evaluate a person on his outlooks/culture if we believe in such a being ? Doesn't this contradict with our own notion of having an absolute. I have observed that in the US people never evaluate a person by what he/she sports.
8 comments:
interesting post.
but my concept of god as such is that its an act or quality.
its not an entity. its not a he or she. its not someone above me or below Me
Now am i a theist or an atheist?
sorry,i really dont get the meaning of all the three posts. I mean what is the point?
I have observed that in the US people never evaluate a person by what he/she sports..
In all fairness they are more receptive of all these.. But to stereotype americans as ppl who dont evaluate u.. U must be kidding..
They are more racists than most ppl in the world.. They are just forced to be nice thanks to the laws here
@ prabu : Swami Vivekananda's quote comes to my mind "The old religion says he is an atheist who doesn't believe in God whereas the new religion says he is an atheist who doesn't believe in himself"
@ aravind : I have made some additions to the post.
@ satyaus : mmm...isn't it a beauty that we all agree to disagree
@ ioiio : I don't mean to compare americans with anybody and I don't want to stereotype them as well. I just said what I had observed. I may be wrong.
Thank you guys for your comments.
Spiritual liberalization and civiliational maturity is the crux of the issue. Period.
I actually agree with ioiio.. a lot of ppl all over the world are forced to be nice due to laws. only when the discrimination becomes open and public (like in zimbabwe) does it get noticed.
as far as judging.. my experience is that if you are good in what you do, people don't manipulate you (atleast on the face). but behind our backs, who knows...
all one can do is to keep moving on..
Very interesting.. so are your previous 2 posts.
I think Cultural identity is the hot topic in the blogosphere at the moment after rounds of tagging..
@ tj : Well said. I think its high time that people understand the difference between sprituality and religion.
@ tt_giant : Yes...as long as they don't say anything straight on the face, it shouldn't bother us.
@ chakra : Thanks
Post a Comment