Altruism is not for those who are inherently perfect nor is it for those trying to be perfect. Altruism is for those who show disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of other or for those who believe in doing the selfless deed without ranting about it to the entire world. It is all about being magnanimous, showing benevolence and performing self-sacrifice.
But tell me, have you ever found a deed that is selfless or magnanimous. It doesn’t matter whether you are a saint or an ordinary man. Some way or other your altruistic instincts are always fed by the hunger for glory or fame. Whether consciously or unconsciously, it is this thirst for glory and fame that is steering you towards generosity and bounteousness.
In fact, the entire premise of altruism is fueled by the insecurities and paranoia instilled by religion over the centuries. Take away the premise of heavenly adobe or nirvana and poof goes the concept into the thin air. Even Atheist, heathens and agnostics are no better than theist or deist. The atheists may not believe in God or religion but they sure do believe in making a name for themselves in history.
Just think about it, If people donate for the construction of churches, temples or mosque they are glorified for generosity and poise. But wouldn’t it would have been same if they just burnt that money on a pyre. There are far more important issues in this world than making a glorified hall for someone whose very existing is questionable.
This society condemns philanthropy by labeling it as a means to rinse one’s sin. But why the heck does it forgets to look at a mirror when it does the same every day. You or me paying a beggar is not altruism at the very best it’s egotism.
People act for many reasons; but for whom, or what, they act or should act is immaterial. No individual can ever act only according to his or her own interests without regard for others nor can they ever truly act for others in complete disregard for his or her own interests.
In fact, a person’s acts are determined by prior events; essentially taking away the concept of choice. But as it turns out in the grand scheme of things, a person obviously possesses some control over his or her next action. So, morally speaking, the ideals of altruism or egotism or egoism are illogical. One should pursue their own interests but without disregard to others’ interest and to an extent which is praiseworthy when compared to self-regarding acts.
The definitions in case you were wondering:
Heathens: Those who don’t adhere to a widely held religion (pagans)
Theist: believes in God but does not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, nor in a divine revelation
Deist: believes in God but does not believe in his superintendence and government, not in the doctrine of the trinity or divine revelation.
Its was an alien concept in India, Only the west knew spirituality. The word spirituality was defined by Christians. India never wanted spirituality.
All india wanted was to be a salve to dharma a concept far boarded and complex then spirituality.
Dharma a 1000’s of years old concept that almost per-dates religion itself or say spirituality.
Yes! dharma is not religion. Its more a way of life or perhaps a pathway that leads to a peaceful of life.
This concept was lost somewhere along the history. Now a days spirituality starts with money and ends with money.
We have some how got it mixed with the ridiculous notion that listening to hypocrite and god-men rant random verses from books of wisdom is spirituality.
Spirituality is not something you can earn its something that can only be experienced. You cannot share it nor can you preach it.
Yes indeed, India or for that matter the entire world lacks spirituality. We have polluted it with religion and terms like self-discovery.
Spirituality is more about self-belief, awareness and empathy.
Do you think, such a thing really exists? Some people say they have seen or touched it but I think its all smoke no fire. I mean, just honestly have you ever seen this elusive beast yourself. No! you have only heard myths about it never facts.
I think it’s one of the most coveted secret guarded closely by oligarch of the puppeteer that people over millennia have called God. Just think about it if this secret were ever to come out will his kingdom survive. After all, he thrives off the prayers generated out of misery, not on the thanks from satisfaction. If someone says he’s satisfied I recommend to get as far as possible from that person. Believe you me that person will eventually ask you to donate all your worldly possession to him so that you can also have stratification. It’s just one of those terms created by society to provide a false sense of security or something to keep you shackled to the pursuit of an equally ridiculous concept called money.
It’s like one of those rare gems, surely to cause pillage on its way. It is like a sorcerer, always seeking ways to torture or chain you up. If you want to get out of its wretched grip, then you gotta be a rebellion. Once you give into its devotion, its detrimental dysfunction, slowing rushing you to destruction, you are liable to get alienated. Because face it society is a two faced bitch. No matter how much it raves for satisfaction. It likes no one who is satisfied. They won’t hesitate to shut you out, with no recourse at all. But to some extent, their anxiety is rightly pointed. It’s a fact satisfaction eventually lead to clogging of progress.
If you are satisfied with what you have, then what’s the need to innovate, deliberate or create. I would say satisfaction is and will always remain biased or a salve to the fabric of time. You may say, satisfaction is having the most exotic lunch box as a child, satisfaction is kissing your love as a teenager, satisfaction is buying a new car as a man or satisfaction is being with family when you grow old. I believe one should always stride towards success not for satisfaction but for gratification or just the thrills of it. The World may brand success as addictive but its a good addiction not like the necromancer that satisfaction is.
Its toxic, obnoxious and crap. It makes the whole concept of selfless deed go into the popper. Tell me, how a concept that can mainly be described as powerful helping the vulnerable be good. In my theory, sympathy is what has precisely helped the powerful get leverage over the vulnerable, a theory proved right time and again by history. Sympathy is always linked to personal rewards. People have sympathetic responses particularly for somebody who is connected to them in some way. A sympathizer always weighs the personal rewards (whether its monetary or social) much more than the actual bliss of helping someone out of respect or empathy for them. I believe sympathy is more of a trait than a virtue.
Just think about it, if you have a sympathetic response towards a horrific event will that remain same if you have subsequent experiences of the same horrific event. Sympathy is self-satisfying and is ruled by interdependence. It’s more of a lubricant to social cog wheels rather than the fuel that drives the engine.
My motto in life is “Empathy is real, sympathy is bullshit”. If you cannot comprehend someone’s misery than at least don’t disrespect it with the charade of sympathy. I have encountered people who will say, they are sympathetic to your cause but what they actually mean is; “Finally! I will get some good fodder out of it to pawn off on social media for an ounce of awe from equally bankrupt social circle”.
Sympathy doesn’t mean that the sympathizer is sharing or feeling your pain. It just means that the sympathizer sees your pain and is glad that he doesn’t have to face it. A fact that can be socially tested if you share your pain and anger to a real friend he will blatantly but genuinely try to be there for you. But, share it with one of those phony kinds and they will provide you with equally phony advises. The best friend always bashes you but theirs’ genuine love in there, but a phony will bash just of the laughs or out of malice.
Last thought to ponder. Parents are the epitome of empathy; but more often than not, you can find children who just offer sympathy for their endurances and sacrifices.
The truth will set you free. I never got it!! How can truth set you free when truth itself is bound by the gordian knot to lies. Truth and lie have a symbiotic relationship one cannot exist without other. The truth is just for balancing things as truth is never good. It always backfires and plunges you into the inferno of hell. Believe me, you, If everyone were to speak the truth all the time then the world would have annihilated itself long ago. Tell me have you ever encountered truth being prefixed with adjectives like sweet, beautiful or lenient; Its has and will always be prefixed with adjectives like bitter, ugly or harsh.
The fact is that truth is not always the best version of things nor Is the worst but is struck somewhere in between. Interestingly, all version of lies is always the same as it is coordinated and pre-planned but this can never be the case with truth. There are always different versions of the truth. Your version of the truth may be different from mine. The truth is always lost in translation.
We, humans, are hard wired for lies. Even if we describe events that we saw or experienced ourselves we subconsciously add events or sequence of events that didn’t even happen. It can rightly be said that There is no whole truth, All truths are half truths. I often wonder why do people say god is truth. How can an entity whose existence has not been proven or may never be is regarded as truth? This statement itself paints the conundrum that truth poses and reveals the flawed logic in truth. As we all know, the truth can never stand on its own. It always seeks approval or needs proof for it to be considered as truth. This convoluted logic has imprisoned truth for eternity.
Nobel laureate André Gide once said “Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.”
To be continued……. As Truth still deserves to be heard and remembered.
What’s a god to a non-believer who don’t believe in anything?
Will he make it out alive? Alright, alright, no church in the wild
Is it an unjustifiable urge in believing someone or observing an obligation to something without questioning its metaphysical existence or autonomy. A placebo inspected by humanity in an endeavor to escape from true nature of things. Or perhaps an ideology or proof of concept for assurance of things hoped for or an evidence of things not seen.
Whatever it may be, one is certain; it is definitely not related to religion. The religious aspect of faith has only been evident from last 7 centuries and is largely responsible for the introduction of the “blind” as a prefix to it. This prefix has poisoned it roots from pagan and dharmic contexts.
I believe that we only show faith in things for which there is no evidence or things we cannot see or have not seen; but as soon as evidence is made available no one dares to speak of “Faith” suddenly it’s substituted with words like confidence, certainty or sureness. The introduction of evidence shatters the charms or aura of faith. Tell me, where is! the talk of faith when it comes to gravity, two two’s are four or that some day one is bound to die. We drag faith out of its coveted shell only when we wish to substitute emotions for evidence.
It aptly said: “The substitution of emotion for evidence leads to strife”, as emotions always change on individual or group perspectives. Hindus may have faith in Rebirth, A Christian may show similar faith in resurrection as a Muslim would in virgins of Heaven or communists in Marxism or an optimist in utopia. But can this faith be defended rationally; No! it cannot be hence it is defended by irrational justifications, propaganda and if necessary by war. Faith has always be equated to confidence on one’s perceived degree of warrant and almost always depend on context. Faith is not only fideism or obedience to a set of rules or statements we must conceive and understand what and why is it required, as having faith without understanding is blind faith which is not true and fair to laws of nature. Evidently introducing “Faith” in a conversation is the best method of avoiding intelligent and intellectual discussions which are resonated by the fact that the root word for faith is “pistis” meaning “to be persuaded”.
Richard Dawkins once said:
” Faith is a process of active non-thinking, a practice that only degrades our understanding of the natural world by allowing anyone to make a claims solely on their personal thoughts, and possibly distorted perceptions as it does not require testing against nature, has no ability to make consistent predictions, and is not subject to peer review”
Interestingly, oldest religions or dharmic religions as opposed to Abrahamic ones address faith with an undertone of philosophy and argue that faith or belief depends, less on strengths of evidence but more on the weight of idea that it represents. They say faith is courage as well as resolution, it’s steadfast and often leads to enlightenment. They encourage to question faith, investigate its validity as for them it is rooted more in curiosity than on or around god.
Faith for me is all about conscious knowledge, good deeds, obedience, in-depth understanding, convictions in things, determinations in seeking goals and the joy of the drive to enlightenment.
Faith is a principle of action and power
Whenever we work toward a worthy goal, we exercise faith