WB commies are not surviving in Bengal because of the supremacy of their ideology, but because of their experience in harboring pro-bengali sentiments since a long time back. People go and vote for WB commies because its portrayed as a bengali party. Leaders from all other parties in Bengal would be adequately branded foreign and hostile to Bengal, by these marxists. The lower world of criminals and union-leaders is so strong and interlinked, that almost no free political thought can take hold in Bengal. The Bengal of British times, seems to be 'gone with the Raj'.
Ironically enough, these so-called Marxists, exercise all nasty machiaveliian political tactics, expoiting the very malpractices in Indian society, which their intellectuals are found tirading against. In the villages of bengal, the new untouchables are those who don't support CPI. Its the same play goin' on in Bengal, where marxists have just changed the names of the characters, to give this whole game a humanitarian edge, or probably to hybridize marxist socialism and Bengali identity into their own kinda communism.
I would say leftists in India don't have an ideology. They have to save their butt by being a good regional party. Throughout all their history, from the intellectuals to the leaders, they have always said what the indian educated class wants them to say. At times, they have even ridiculously changed stances, like in the time of world war. They remain nothing more than whores of elitism, controlled by big business houses, but still trying to sell their ideas of socialistic justice, reflected nowhere in their own actions. If they represent anything in india, its only the bankrupcy of ideas and hypocrisy.
delete
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Saturday, May 07, 2005
my rant on religion
do unto others as you would they do unto you.
This ethic is based on individuality, and the ablilty of an individual to make choices that seemingly govern his fate. To be frank, this has roots in an existing christian ethic. In this particular case, existence of an individual has to be assumed. Since hindu/buddhists don't believe in individual entity, it really doesn't make sense to govern their ethics on this rather than the fatalistic notion of karma.
The reason why atheism has been as vain, as any other theism [on a rational ground] is that it can't really detach itself from either cultural or philosophical norms rooted in other religions. In this ethic, for example, the regular individuality is assumed. So, on one hand, where this can help people detach themselves from church, on the other, it doesn't really give them a belief system very different from one based in christianity.
These atheists can remove the religion, like they adequately have by separating state and church. But then, saying that all what church has given to world is irrationality in superstition, is difficult for its denial of the fact that the work culture everyone works in is governed by the puritan work ethic; or the fact that the ideals of freedom of individual, equality are mere post-renaissance reformulations of 'God lies in everyone's heart' against the earlier times when 'king deified was god'
Point being - every ethics is governed by a certain philosophy, and before philosophy was separated from church, religion was the sole contributor to philosophy. Since philosophy can't be denied yet, nor can its basis in a certain religion. isliye bachchon, thhoda religion padh lo
delete
Saying that [i]moral and spiritual aspects of all religions are at their core identical, when the religions themselves are so different[/i] is wrong too.At least the moral aspects of Hindu-budhhist religions are completely different from judaist ones, in the very essence, from belief in an individual's soul to 'duty' of an individual. Budhhits/hindus don't believe in individual soul, and their notion of dharma is very different from 'duty' of an individual too.
That all religions are same is generally said, I think, to point out that every religion was meant to administer people, tell people not to fight each other, stay happy and cool, blah blah blah. However, it doesn't make sense, because you're saying that current form of ethics was the hidden motive of ancient religions, which of course, is a self-satisfied argument. Most of the religions were removed/changed adequately to fit certain standards through history. I don't really see why the essence of all religions should be considered same, when they were so strongly motivated to end each other, both in idea and material. What is the common essence, in that case?
The argument that religion is just about imposing a certain morality is not ture either. Philosophy has been the main course of all religions. Religion didn't start in India for instance, because some romanticist brahmins crafted a system where everyone would be happy. It was only a philosophical quest that started religion, to justify/understand whats right or wrong. So, was it for most of the philosophers all over the world Greece-Rome-Mesopotamia... Pagans' cultural traditions were removed, but the philosophical tradition was cherished, even by christians and muslims. Because of the inherent re-ordering after the spread of chrisitanity, there are still a lot of conflicting beliefs in the religion, which translates into a lot of philosophical debate on morals in our times. for example,
1- Belief in soul, is orignially not a christian concept. Greeks were the ones who believe in it. A jehovah witness for example won't believe in soul, on grounds of its absence in the revealed scriptures. Christian belief being a melange of a lot of faith, does have this concept as its central belief, however.
2- Likewise, belief in atman, and not soul is an essential part of hindu-buddhist religion. Most of the hindus don't know that.
3- Most of the pagan traditions of Roman Catholic church are because of the roman empire. The pope for example, served only as a substitute for roman pontiffs, pretty much antagonistic to the idea that divinity can't be in a mortal. Greeks-Romans form the heart of western epistemology, the reason why later, it strengthened itself to get separated from church; the latter having once suppressed the former.
This ethic is based on individuality, and the ablilty of an individual to make choices that seemingly govern his fate. To be frank, this has roots in an existing christian ethic. In this particular case, existence of an individual has to be assumed. Since hindu/buddhists don't believe in individual entity, it really doesn't make sense to govern their ethics on this rather than the fatalistic notion of karma.
The reason why atheism has been as vain, as any other theism [on a rational ground] is that it can't really detach itself from either cultural or philosophical norms rooted in other religions. In this ethic, for example, the regular individuality is assumed. So, on one hand, where this can help people detach themselves from church, on the other, it doesn't really give them a belief system very different from one based in christianity.
These atheists can remove the religion, like they adequately have by separating state and church. But then, saying that all what church has given to world is irrationality in superstition, is difficult for its denial of the fact that the work culture everyone works in is governed by the puritan work ethic; or the fact that the ideals of freedom of individual, equality are mere post-renaissance reformulations of 'God lies in everyone's heart' against the earlier times when 'king deified was god'
Point being - every ethics is governed by a certain philosophy, and before philosophy was separated from church, religion was the sole contributor to philosophy. Since philosophy can't be denied yet, nor can its basis in a certain religion. isliye bachchon, thhoda religion padh lo
delete
Saying that [i]moral and spiritual aspects of all religions are at their core identical, when the religions themselves are so different[/i] is wrong too.At least the moral aspects of Hindu-budhhist religions are completely different from judaist ones, in the very essence, from belief in an individual's soul to 'duty' of an individual. Budhhits/hindus don't believe in individual soul, and their notion of dharma is very different from 'duty' of an individual too.
That all religions are same is generally said, I think, to point out that every religion was meant to administer people, tell people not to fight each other, stay happy and cool, blah blah blah. However, it doesn't make sense, because you're saying that current form of ethics was the hidden motive of ancient religions, which of course, is a self-satisfied argument. Most of the religions were removed/changed adequately to fit certain standards through history. I don't really see why the essence of all religions should be considered same, when they were so strongly motivated to end each other, both in idea and material. What is the common essence, in that case?
The argument that religion is just about imposing a certain morality is not ture either. Philosophy has been the main course of all religions. Religion didn't start in India for instance, because some romanticist brahmins crafted a system where everyone would be happy. It was only a philosophical quest that started religion, to justify/understand whats right or wrong. So, was it for most of the philosophers all over the world Greece-Rome-Mesopotamia... Pagans' cultural traditions were removed, but the philosophical tradition was cherished, even by christians and muslims. Because of the inherent re-ordering after the spread of chrisitanity, there are still a lot of conflicting beliefs in the religion, which translates into a lot of philosophical debate on morals in our times. for example,
1- Belief in soul, is orignially not a christian concept. Greeks were the ones who believe in it. A jehovah witness for example won't believe in soul, on grounds of its absence in the revealed scriptures. Christian belief being a melange of a lot of faith, does have this concept as its central belief, however.
2- Likewise, belief in atman, and not soul is an essential part of hindu-buddhist religion. Most of the hindus don't know that.
3- Most of the pagan traditions of Roman Catholic church are because of the roman empire. The pope for example, served only as a substitute for roman pontiffs, pretty much antagonistic to the idea that divinity can't be in a mortal. Greeks-Romans form the heart of western epistemology, the reason why later, it strengthened itself to get separated from church; the latter having once suppressed the former.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)