I was coming back from work when over the flyover my scooty slowed down. I thought maybe it was having its usual problems even after the recent repair. It went a small distance and then just stopped and to my horror I discovered that actually the petrol was over. Why didn’t I notice the petrol, I cursed myself and considered my options. The nearest pump was a good 15 minutes drive from here. Surely I cant drag the scooty till there! The only option was for my husband to bring me a bottle of petrol. A minimum of 2 hours lost I thought and I had just moved four paces with the intent to drag the scooty down the flyover, when I noticed a Man on an Activa coming from the front heading right towards me! He stopped near me and asked. “You are out of petrol? I will give u.” I was amazed! It really looked like somebody sent him. I was reminded of a scene in one of Paulo Cohelo’s books in which the author speaks about angels coming in human form to help during the most dire of circumstances. I began wondering how he is going to give me petrol and watched as he took out a bottle half filled with petrol! Now it really seemed like someone sent him!“Take enough to last till the nearest pump” he said.
“Do you always carry petrol!” I asked surprised. I offered him money for the petrol but he refused. “I am so indebted how can I thank u”. I wondered aloud. He just took his bottle nodded and went off..in the direction from which he had come! Now the haze cleared in my head. So he had crossed me and had come back wondering if it was petrol I needed!!! Hmm…yet it is very low in probability that someone carrying petrol should be passing by you just when you run out of petrol.
To me he will always be “The angel who carried petrol...”
PS- I neared the service road to the pump and was afraid I might not make it, what with an unprecedented block around the entrance to the road. I managed through to the service road and it cleared as I reached the pump. As I got the petrol filled, I looked back at the main road... It was a Jam Pack! I would really have lost more than an hour in that block! I realized that the events of the day had rather... saved me time!!
…Sometimes favourable things come under terrorizing disguises....!!!
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Friday, May 27, 2011
School...of Good Hope
The other day few of us, parents, were talking about the cost of education in our times. It ranged from free, to Rs 15 per month to Rs 30 per month. How the times have changed… educational institutions are now synonymous with money……"expense” to most and “making more” to some select few. Today the Mexican grass on the school lawn, the exotic food in the canteen is advertised to impress parents to empty their pockets. And guess what, it actually works!
I was talking yesterday with a former principal of a school and in a matter of time I was telling her my short experience with teaching seven years back and how frustrated I feel about the education scenario. I was telling her what I feel is required to better the situation and discussed the economics of incorporating it.
That economics should not be important in the education field cannot be justified in today's context; as Money is a priority for all private enterprises and THAT cannot be changed and better be accepted. And yet some of the consumerism plaguing schools should be removed as it goes against the very things schools are to teach like "reducing resource wastage"!. In olden times there was optimum resource utilization In today's times Bags, Uniform, 'Adidas' white shoes, stationary and books have to be brought from the school every year.Often after giving a bag, the school wants the parent to buy smaller bags for the little kid so no one questions the load they carry! That's one time I have felt the house is full of bags; like from old schools, new school and bags as promotional gifts from consumers stores but not one to carry to school. I also wonder if there is still the concept of using old books of the elder sibling or senior students in a posh school? How many trees are we cutting, and how much resources are we wasting to write "SAVE TREES, DON'T WASTE RESOURCES"?
Now more on the current filthy scenario
1. Education today is not focused on bettering the standards of education but rather is focused on making money for the private owners of the institution.
a. Schools are often marketed very well but it all turns out to be a flashy crust over a highly rotting inners where a teacher in a class does not even last for more than three months (yup despite the one year bonds). One teacher lasting one year has become rare in most schools, then what can be assured about the teaching standards of a school where there are not even good, experienced, stable teachers to show off? Is the expensive grass on the lawn and the canteen food enough for the child’s development?
c. Freshers into the teaching field are loaded with as many classes possible and even classteachership (associated are meaningless paper works and record keeping) when it is well understood that loading thus would lead to lesser preparation time for each class. .(Believe me even with four hours of sleep a fresh teacher cant spare an average of 20 minutes of preparation time per period a day under the above scenario) "Teaching well" definitely does not seem to be the aim when "preparation" time is not given importance while assigning the load! The aim rather seems to be to squeeze the very life out of the teacher for the expense she is incurring on the institution in the name of a comparative pittance of a salary. And I am not much wrong in generalizing this to most schools as I confirmed from the discussion with the former principal. This is true for most schools and things are no better today than seven years back.
c. Teachers are loaded like a donkey but compared to their work their pay stays unremarkable (also compared to other less stressful professions). There was long back an article in a paper that most of the heart patients admitted in hospitals are teachers. I can believe that. My short tryst with teaching left me convinced that only someone who has no better option would want to teach under the current load scenario.
2. Bettering options for the scenario without causing a dent in the money making. Money is important agreed, but there are also possible ways of earning it by first just aiming to make for a happy teacher
a. A fresh teacher should be given less classes and facilitate a scenario where the teacher can devote atleast two hours of preparation time for each 45 minute or one hour class. When the teacher has perfected her basic subject and arrived at an appropriate teaching style in the first year, she can be slowly assigned other frill and froth work like classteachership or even more classes. The economics of this is that more breathing space would make for contented teachers who don’t run away breaking even the one year bond and thus save the school the stress of teacher hunting after every two months.
b. Facilitating the appropriate environment to hone teaching skills in the first year of a fresh teacher and making for contented teachers would lead to stable experienced teachers in a school and a good name for the school without the need for expensive marketing strategies and loads of lies. A little bit of freedom and flexibility should be allowed to the teacher, rather than deciding how the teacher should do the job (directions like -the teacher should make notes and dictate the notes, finish course by October, revise in the remaining months, apart from this,of course do what u want in the class…!!REALLY? Where now remains the time per class to do what the teacher may want to do? In fact all the inflexible directions mentioned,are a pressure to ensure conforming rather than allow creative teaching) There can be deadlines and directions but there should not be inflexibility and absolute lack of trust in the teacher's own discretion and decisions.
c. In the end having contented teachers would mean requiring more teachers per subject or even class, but I don’t think it would mean more expense to the institution over time for the institution as in the long run it has to be good bargain with a good name that requires no expensive marketing and lesser stress and expense of recruiting teachers all through the year which I feel could add up to the same increment in expense as incurred to the institution by salary increments to a stable teacher over the years. (Expense in advertising for new teachers and possibly having to offer better pay scale to draw in a good teacher after every other term or year)
The former principal realized how frustrated I felt. She agreed that my points had base but her question was who will bell the cat? Only someone who would stick the neck out and start a school because it is not the principal who decides how the school runs but the management. Moreover why would the Management try out this change when the old system is working very well in getting in the Moolah.
Maybe somebody someday would have time and patience to try out, calculate and confirm what I am suspecting…that it would be more economical if the above changes are incorporated. Till someone with enterprise does actually bell the cat, there is still something we can do as Parents to encourage good schools. That is, as parents, do not fall for advertising gimmicks-Old School, Reputed School, Flashy attractive school prospectus. (Yes, keep in mind-almost every lofty thing fanned in front of you about a school can be ascribed to mere gimmicks) So look for schools which though may be bad in their marketing, do have stable teachers who are also known to be the best and try getting kids into such schools first before trying for any other. Another thing we fall for is the belief that higher the fee of the school, the better it is, and schools cash in on that delusion. Rich and middle class parents should avoid falling into this trap and all of us should encourage the schools of substance rather than those with well bred marketing strategies. This if practiced by all who have an excess of cash to spend, in the long run could force school managements to change their tactics and bring change 'where it matters' to draw the money minters. Till someone within the institution does bell the cat…, it's for now up to all rich parents out there to bring the change we want for our kids. They deserve a better view of schools as we had...A view we miss so badly today
I was talking yesterday with a former principal of a school and in a matter of time I was telling her my short experience with teaching seven years back and how frustrated I feel about the education scenario. I was telling her what I feel is required to better the situation and discussed the economics of incorporating it.
That economics should not be important in the education field cannot be justified in today's context; as Money is a priority for all private enterprises and THAT cannot be changed and better be accepted. And yet some of the consumerism plaguing schools should be removed as it goes against the very things schools are to teach like "reducing resource wastage"!. In olden times there was optimum resource utilization In today's times Bags, Uniform, 'Adidas' white shoes, stationary and books have to be brought from the school every year.Often after giving a bag, the school wants the parent to buy smaller bags for the little kid so no one questions the load they carry! That's one time I have felt the house is full of bags; like from old schools, new school and bags as promotional gifts from consumers stores but not one to carry to school. I also wonder if there is still the concept of using old books of the elder sibling or senior students in a posh school? How many trees are we cutting, and how much resources are we wasting to write "SAVE TREES, DON'T WASTE RESOURCES"?
Now more on the current filthy scenario
1. Education today is not focused on bettering the standards of education but rather is focused on making money for the private owners of the institution.
a. Schools are often marketed very well but it all turns out to be a flashy crust over a highly rotting inners where a teacher in a class does not even last for more than three months (yup despite the one year bonds). One teacher lasting one year has become rare in most schools, then what can be assured about the teaching standards of a school where there are not even good, experienced, stable teachers to show off? Is the expensive grass on the lawn and the canteen food enough for the child’s development?
c. Freshers into the teaching field are loaded with as many classes possible and even classteachership (associated are meaningless paper works and record keeping) when it is well understood that loading thus would lead to lesser preparation time for each class. .(Believe me even with four hours of sleep a fresh teacher cant spare an average of 20 minutes of preparation time per period a day under the above scenario) "Teaching well" definitely does not seem to be the aim when "preparation" time is not given importance while assigning the load! The aim rather seems to be to squeeze the very life out of the teacher for the expense she is incurring on the institution in the name of a comparative pittance of a salary. And I am not much wrong in generalizing this to most schools as I confirmed from the discussion with the former principal. This is true for most schools and things are no better today than seven years back.
c. Teachers are loaded like a donkey but compared to their work their pay stays unremarkable (also compared to other less stressful professions). There was long back an article in a paper that most of the heart patients admitted in hospitals are teachers. I can believe that. My short tryst with teaching left me convinced that only someone who has no better option would want to teach under the current load scenario.
2. Bettering options for the scenario without causing a dent in the money making. Money is important agreed, but there are also possible ways of earning it by first just aiming to make for a happy teacher
a. A fresh teacher should be given less classes and facilitate a scenario where the teacher can devote atleast two hours of preparation time for each 45 minute or one hour class. When the teacher has perfected her basic subject and arrived at an appropriate teaching style in the first year, she can be slowly assigned other frill and froth work like classteachership or even more classes. The economics of this is that more breathing space would make for contented teachers who don’t run away breaking even the one year bond and thus save the school the stress of teacher hunting after every two months.
b. Facilitating the appropriate environment to hone teaching skills in the first year of a fresh teacher and making for contented teachers would lead to stable experienced teachers in a school and a good name for the school without the need for expensive marketing strategies and loads of lies. A little bit of freedom and flexibility should be allowed to the teacher, rather than deciding how the teacher should do the job (directions like -the teacher should make notes and dictate the notes, finish course by October, revise in the remaining months, apart from this,of course do what u want in the class…!!REALLY? Where now remains the time per class to do what the teacher may want to do? In fact all the inflexible directions mentioned,are a pressure to ensure conforming rather than allow creative teaching) There can be deadlines and directions but there should not be inflexibility and absolute lack of trust in the teacher's own discretion and decisions.
c. In the end having contented teachers would mean requiring more teachers per subject or even class, but I don’t think it would mean more expense to the institution over time for the institution as in the long run it has to be good bargain with a good name that requires no expensive marketing and lesser stress and expense of recruiting teachers all through the year which I feel could add up to the same increment in expense as incurred to the institution by salary increments to a stable teacher over the years. (Expense in advertising for new teachers and possibly having to offer better pay scale to draw in a good teacher after every other term or year)
The former principal realized how frustrated I felt. She agreed that my points had base but her question was who will bell the cat? Only someone who would stick the neck out and start a school because it is not the principal who decides how the school runs but the management. Moreover why would the Management try out this change when the old system is working very well in getting in the Moolah.
Maybe somebody someday would have time and patience to try out, calculate and confirm what I am suspecting…that it would be more economical if the above changes are incorporated. Till someone with enterprise does actually bell the cat, there is still something we can do as Parents to encourage good schools. That is, as parents, do not fall for advertising gimmicks-Old School, Reputed School, Flashy attractive school prospectus. (Yes, keep in mind-almost every lofty thing fanned in front of you about a school can be ascribed to mere gimmicks) So look for schools which though may be bad in their marketing, do have stable teachers who are also known to be the best and try getting kids into such schools first before trying for any other. Another thing we fall for is the belief that higher the fee of the school, the better it is, and schools cash in on that delusion. Rich and middle class parents should avoid falling into this trap and all of us should encourage the schools of substance rather than those with well bred marketing strategies. This if practiced by all who have an excess of cash to spend, in the long run could force school managements to change their tactics and bring change 'where it matters' to draw the money minters. Till someone within the institution does bell the cat…, it's for now up to all rich parents out there to bring the change we want for our kids. They deserve a better view of schools as we had...A view we miss so badly today
Friday, May 6, 2011
Evolution, a tool in creation (compilation of a discussion)
There is an arguement that favours evolution as the creator and excludes God. Science and explanations, I feel often makes naive minds blind towards the heart of matters, it makes one believe that anything explainable is science and only if not explainable is devine. How exactly does science try to explain the term divine? "That which human mind cannot explain?" Just because evolution can explain creation, is it necessary that there is nothing devine about the process of evolution
I have wondered why most animals dont seem to have the problems that humans have. The most potent example is of how they dont need a doctor to deliver their babies. How do they deliver three four babies without a difficulty! They are perfect reproductive systems. I have been having a discussion which made me think through this and conclude that our interference with nature's elimination of the unfit is responsible for it. Evolution would have eliminated the defective body type but science and surgery made those gene pools survive. It is the will, the prayer, the spirit of man that found answers to how to save the ineffective reproductive systems...in anasthesia, in operations. Why is there these defects that cause death? I would like to point out that death is a required purpose of nature to keep the population under optimum levels. It hurts mans emotions but overpopulation hurts more eventually to the natural system. There is thus also a purpose and an end to the defects and it does seem evolution is a tool of the designer God where defects control population (rather than a separating argument that evolution cannot be divine).As a priest recently very correctly answered his own ponderings of how there can be grief in some very religious families. He asked -'is there anyone who has had only grief in life? Is there anyone who has had only joy in life? Life has both joy and grief and it has to be accepted as such.'
Now to that we may ask then is there no mercy? Infact all around we can see mercy as well. Nature makes perfect by selection of the best but god is merciful on the imperfect too. Mans spirit found answers to how to cut across evolutions elimination and perfection streak. Mans spirit dived into the devine consciousness where everything is possible. All man has been able to create is not by his complex body but he willed it first in his mind and powered it with his spirit. He found answers on how to save lives that could have been lost to their imperfections,found out how to make survival of the unfit possible..That is God's mercy. You might try to turn a cover of a Jam bottle without an aid but sometimes it is easier to do with a lever. God for some works uses Man as the lever. All complex machines that God created are also tools created for finer works. Man is a tool that God created to work out some other tricks, like working against Gods own created 'nature's natural selection system', like to make a world (we call civilization) where there is not always that fear of the predator as is in the wild etc etc.(Have u seen how a wild animal always lives a life of fear from the predator, from the forces of nature..How many times do we experience fear in our civilised living away from the wild in safe houses? We have so got used to the life of no fear that we forget that living in fear is an actual everyday part of life of the living being in the wild. Could that be why men often seek out thrills and intense experiences,instincts of a wild past?)
The spirit works with and without the body. It is naive to argue that only a body can create. Even a Human body, a designer of things is nothing without its spirit. It is the spirit of man that creates not merely its complex body. Can a dead complex body create? In that respect it may not be a complex system called body that creates things but rather a 'simple system or in other words spirit' creates things through the complex system called body too just as the spirit creates even without it.
Can then mans mind be trusted in its faith in a creator God that he cannot see, that is a mind without a body? Can we trust the mind not to be delusional?
It is true that mind may some times be deluded but it is also true that mind cannot easily be deluded. How can we call 60 percent of humanity deluded because it believes in God? It is highly improbable that so many people would be deluded about one thing. I believe that if the mind does not accept all suggested answers but is definite about one inborn answer, the existence of a certain power that designed everything then the mind need not be distrusted, for the mind is not easily deluded, just as saying it is hot when it is actually cold is not comforting, religion or the concept of a creator God cannot comfort either unless there is some truth to it.
For example why does the mind often believe in a 'certain future' just because of dreams interpreted as premonitions. What is the explanation of confidence in it and what is the explanation when it actually comes true? For the self it may be considered as a self fulfilling prophecy but what when it is related to humanity on a large scale? In "Times Life" there was an article on premonition which gave many stories of how incidents like the Tsumani in Japan, the twin tower being hit by a plane was predicted or dreamt about…"Texas physician Dr Larry Dossey, in his 1989 book ‘Recovering the Soul’, mind introduced the concept of “nonlocal mind”- mind unconfined to the brain and Body, mind spread infinitely through space and time" According to him premonition was a built in feature in man. Premonition is possible in any person some may be more aware than others. People are confident about its meaning and warn others of whom they saw the premonition for example while a person was in an auto she got a call from a friend to get out of the auto....Unheeded she had an accident immediately afterwards. There must be some reason why a mind is confident of certain messages it gets regarding the future.
Then does mind's outreach also include a very distant past too as can be understood in the concept of a non local mind? March 2, 2011 paper had an article on 'well known tales from bible which could have a basis in science'. One among them I found particularly noteworthy. It is related to the question of "do we have a common anscestor in Eve?" ...as follows
"In his book ‘River out of Eden’, zoologist and atheist Richard Dawkins used a complicated mathematical model to work backwards through our DNA geneology, saying, “ there has to be a woman of whom this claim can be made. The fact that she did live in some place and at some time is certain. So to the extent that Eve is our common ancestor, even the Godless believe she existed."
The originator of the story about eve as the first woman, mother of all mankind had definitely no idea that it could be proved scientifically, but somehow it was told as a truth to be believed in. What made the mind confident of its truth? It seems possible that mans nonlocal mind can be aware of the distant past just as it can be aware of the future. Its an obvious conclusion...
We can conclude then that mind exists not only in the body but also non locally extends outside the body and it can be inferred from the above discussion that it extends to the future and to the past, which in fact would mean it is timeless! Isn't that what we think is God?
I have wondered why most animals dont seem to have the problems that humans have. The most potent example is of how they dont need a doctor to deliver their babies. How do they deliver three four babies without a difficulty! They are perfect reproductive systems. I have been having a discussion which made me think through this and conclude that our interference with nature's elimination of the unfit is responsible for it. Evolution would have eliminated the defective body type but science and surgery made those gene pools survive. It is the will, the prayer, the spirit of man that found answers to how to save the ineffective reproductive systems...in anasthesia, in operations. Why is there these defects that cause death? I would like to point out that death is a required purpose of nature to keep the population under optimum levels. It hurts mans emotions but overpopulation hurts more eventually to the natural system. There is thus also a purpose and an end to the defects and it does seem evolution is a tool of the designer God where defects control population (rather than a separating argument that evolution cannot be divine).As a priest recently very correctly answered his own ponderings of how there can be grief in some very religious families. He asked -'is there anyone who has had only grief in life? Is there anyone who has had only joy in life? Life has both joy and grief and it has to be accepted as such.'
Now to that we may ask then is there no mercy? Infact all around we can see mercy as well. Nature makes perfect by selection of the best but god is merciful on the imperfect too. Mans spirit found answers to how to cut across evolutions elimination and perfection streak. Mans spirit dived into the devine consciousness where everything is possible. All man has been able to create is not by his complex body but he willed it first in his mind and powered it with his spirit. He found answers on how to save lives that could have been lost to their imperfections,found out how to make survival of the unfit possible..That is God's mercy. You might try to turn a cover of a Jam bottle without an aid but sometimes it is easier to do with a lever. God for some works uses Man as the lever. All complex machines that God created are also tools created for finer works. Man is a tool that God created to work out some other tricks, like working against Gods own created 'nature's natural selection system', like to make a world (we call civilization) where there is not always that fear of the predator as is in the wild etc etc.(Have u seen how a wild animal always lives a life of fear from the predator, from the forces of nature..How many times do we experience fear in our civilised living away from the wild in safe houses? We have so got used to the life of no fear that we forget that living in fear is an actual everyday part of life of the living being in the wild. Could that be why men often seek out thrills and intense experiences,instincts of a wild past?)
The spirit works with and without the body. It is naive to argue that only a body can create. Even a Human body, a designer of things is nothing without its spirit. It is the spirit of man that creates not merely its complex body. Can a dead complex body create? In that respect it may not be a complex system called body that creates things but rather a 'simple system or in other words spirit' creates things through the complex system called body too just as the spirit creates even without it.
Can then mans mind be trusted in its faith in a creator God that he cannot see, that is a mind without a body? Can we trust the mind not to be delusional?
It is true that mind may some times be deluded but it is also true that mind cannot easily be deluded. How can we call 60 percent of humanity deluded because it believes in God? It is highly improbable that so many people would be deluded about one thing. I believe that if the mind does not accept all suggested answers but is definite about one inborn answer, the existence of a certain power that designed everything then the mind need not be distrusted, for the mind is not easily deluded, just as saying it is hot when it is actually cold is not comforting, religion or the concept of a creator God cannot comfort either unless there is some truth to it.
For example why does the mind often believe in a 'certain future' just because of dreams interpreted as premonitions. What is the explanation of confidence in it and what is the explanation when it actually comes true? For the self it may be considered as a self fulfilling prophecy but what when it is related to humanity on a large scale? In "Times Life" there was an article on premonition which gave many stories of how incidents like the Tsumani in Japan, the twin tower being hit by a plane was predicted or dreamt about…"Texas physician Dr Larry Dossey, in his 1989 book ‘Recovering the Soul’, mind introduced the concept of “nonlocal mind”- mind unconfined to the brain and Body, mind spread infinitely through space and time" According to him premonition was a built in feature in man. Premonition is possible in any person some may be more aware than others. People are confident about its meaning and warn others of whom they saw the premonition for example while a person was in an auto she got a call from a friend to get out of the auto....Unheeded she had an accident immediately afterwards. There must be some reason why a mind is confident of certain messages it gets regarding the future.
Then does mind's outreach also include a very distant past too as can be understood in the concept of a non local mind? March 2, 2011 paper had an article on 'well known tales from bible which could have a basis in science'. One among them I found particularly noteworthy. It is related to the question of "do we have a common anscestor in Eve?" ...as follows
"In his book ‘River out of Eden’, zoologist and atheist Richard Dawkins used a complicated mathematical model to work backwards through our DNA geneology, saying, “ there has to be a woman of whom this claim can be made. The fact that she did live in some place and at some time is certain. So to the extent that Eve is our common ancestor, even the Godless believe she existed."
The originator of the story about eve as the first woman, mother of all mankind had definitely no idea that it could be proved scientifically, but somehow it was told as a truth to be believed in. What made the mind confident of its truth? It seems possible that mans nonlocal mind can be aware of the distant past just as it can be aware of the future. Its an obvious conclusion...
We can conclude then that mind exists not only in the body but also non locally extends outside the body and it can be inferred from the above discussion that it extends to the future and to the past, which in fact would mean it is timeless! Isn't that what we think is God?
Saturday, February 26, 2011
One Faithful Friend
Some times the experiences in church can be truly moving! I arrived in church a bit late. The sermon was going on. "You must help when you see people who are in need." 'Oh yeah' I thought as just the night before I had commented to my friend on facebook that it is dangerous to have a good heart and one had better hide it!
"But Jesus never said you wont have troubles" continued the priest. "He would give you strength to handle the troubles of each day and he has said not to worry about tomorrow as each day has enough troubles of its own. Just don't tire of doing good."
I was mellow now but was thinking, 'What's the use anyway of any good we do, any advice we give? It doesn't seem to be interesting to anybody.'
"Many people left Jesus saying that his teachings are too hard." continued the priest."Jesus was also insecure and asked his disciples, 'Will you also leave me?' He also said, 'When I come again will I find any faith?' Jesus even felt isolated from God while on his cross and cried to Him, 'Why have you abandoned me'. It is important that we rise above our anxieties and ask God in prayer '..protect us from all anxiety...'
The priest seemed to be answering my thoughts. I had been waking up many mornings feeling very anxious and uneasy. From a spate of experiences with a number of people, I had really formed a strong belief that it was bad to be good as the good seem to be considered 'the weak' and taken advantage of. Also there usually never has seemed to be an acknowledgement or awareness of the good done but often the good was returned with bad or even abandonment especially when you were in need.
What happened in church was totally unexpected and as the mass ended there was the song, "I just keep trusting my lord as I walk along. I just keep trusting my lord and he gives me a song.......He is a faithful friend....I can count on him, to the very end." That was it, my eyes filled up. This had been my favorite song since childhood.
He really proved a faithful friend to me in church today. Even if there seem no results of doing good, moments like these are enough to inspire not to tire doing what seems good and what seems right.
"But Jesus never said you wont have troubles" continued the priest. "He would give you strength to handle the troubles of each day and he has said not to worry about tomorrow as each day has enough troubles of its own. Just don't tire of doing good."
I was mellow now but was thinking, 'What's the use anyway of any good we do, any advice we give? It doesn't seem to be interesting to anybody.'
"Many people left Jesus saying that his teachings are too hard." continued the priest."Jesus was also insecure and asked his disciples, 'Will you also leave me?' He also said, 'When I come again will I find any faith?' Jesus even felt isolated from God while on his cross and cried to Him, 'Why have you abandoned me'. It is important that we rise above our anxieties and ask God in prayer '..protect us from all anxiety...'
The priest seemed to be answering my thoughts. I had been waking up many mornings feeling very anxious and uneasy. From a spate of experiences with a number of people, I had really formed a strong belief that it was bad to be good as the good seem to be considered 'the weak' and taken advantage of. Also there usually never has seemed to be an acknowledgement or awareness of the good done but often the good was returned with bad or even abandonment especially when you were in need.
What happened in church was totally unexpected and as the mass ended there was the song, "I just keep trusting my lord as I walk along. I just keep trusting my lord and he gives me a song.......He is a faithful friend....I can count on him, to the very end." That was it, my eyes filled up. This had been my favorite song since childhood.
He really proved a faithful friend to me in church today. Even if there seem no results of doing good, moments like these are enough to inspire not to tire doing what seems good and what seems right.
Lakes and Trees
I love the sight of lakes, the natural contours of its shoreline surrounded by lush green trees and hills. I enjoyed the view of such a lake from an apartment in Puna. It was refreshing just to look out the window. Now in Bangalore I pass by a lake each day as I travel to and fro my work place. I must be so happy? Its just next to the road I travel really , but alas I cant see it!! I can glimpse portions of it if I am travelling by bus! The reason is that it is fenced, protected and there is a charge to visit it. Good thing, (considering the encroachment and deliberate filling of lakes that has been the fate of many of Bangalore's lakes), except that I can’t enjoy even the sight of it. Maybe, if fencing was unavoidable, a wired fence instead of cemented one or…well, stupid as it may seem but toughened glass fence would have been good so that people passing by could enjoy a pleasant sight to which they have every right. Am I being irrational? Maybe I should just visit the lake to enjoy it rather than cribbing that I can’t see it from the road. Well even inside, what with the construction next to it I really cant see it as a natural lake. With man having cornered lakes with constructions around it to make which allow us to sit by its side on chairs over a platform ... I really need imagination to see it as a natural lake and not a man made reservoir!(actually this lake was reduced to a puddle around seven years back due to encroachment and we have to thank fellowmen for salvaging it and protecting it, though I still believe that it should have been made to look more natural) Cant all these businesses go on but still retain the natural features around the lake to allow us to relish its full natural glory. Cant spare precious space for that I guess?
The other day I had to wait in front of a school for 20 minutues. There was a flyover work going on right in front. It was noon and I didn’t have an umbrella. I looked to the right and left for nature’s umbrellas, the trees but there were none. I was standing on the cement paving outside the school. I imagined trees being cut to pave the area in front of the school. Was it necessary to pave here? Who am I to decide it was not. Maybe it was necessary, but still ‘they’ could have paved round the trees leaving some trees for people who sometimes have to wait there in the sun? It used to be done like that in many other parts of bangalore as can be witnessed, trees standing inside concrete pavings...
An autowala who once drove me back from work, told me that when he was a kid, the area was lush with trees and the temperature never usually exceeded 20 degree. It was only after IT and the highway coming up that the temperature has been taking the upside as the trees were compromised. Well I enjoy the comforts of the highway and the accessibility but I enjoy trees and shade and 'even temperatures' too. Cant they coexist?
I had thought that it is population that is eating up the possibilities of coexistence of man and nature but I am thinking differently now. We make space and time for whatever we really value in life by compromising on things we don’t value as much. It is our misplaced priorities that are behind the mismanagement.
We value material comforts more than we value aesthetic comforts. If we had prioritized aesthetic comforts we would have thought twice and avoided the placing of structures that are currently in the vicinity of the lake and built them with the objective not to lose the pristine look of the lake. If we had valued the comfort of a tree we would have avoided our need of claiming land by paving it. Is the damage irreversible? Well, we give more priority to money, if it hadn't been so then breaking down some structures and rearranging everything so that the lake looks natural and breaking up some of the paving so a tree can some day be accessed after every few meters.. wouldnt have been a far fetched thought. On the positive side though, I must say that on my way to work there is one other lake which I can view from a flyover and it has been spared its pristine look...thankfully.
A lake to look at and a tree to stand under, if not for these little things, what really is life for?
The other day I had to wait in front of a school for 20 minutues. There was a flyover work going on right in front. It was noon and I didn’t have an umbrella. I looked to the right and left for nature’s umbrellas, the trees but there were none. I was standing on the cement paving outside the school. I imagined trees being cut to pave the area in front of the school. Was it necessary to pave here? Who am I to decide it was not. Maybe it was necessary, but still ‘they’ could have paved round the trees leaving some trees for people who sometimes have to wait there in the sun? It used to be done like that in many other parts of bangalore as can be witnessed, trees standing inside concrete pavings...
An autowala who once drove me back from work, told me that when he was a kid, the area was lush with trees and the temperature never usually exceeded 20 degree. It was only after IT and the highway coming up that the temperature has been taking the upside as the trees were compromised. Well I enjoy the comforts of the highway and the accessibility but I enjoy trees and shade and 'even temperatures' too. Cant they coexist?
I had thought that it is population that is eating up the possibilities of coexistence of man and nature but I am thinking differently now. We make space and time for whatever we really value in life by compromising on things we don’t value as much. It is our misplaced priorities that are behind the mismanagement.
We value material comforts more than we value aesthetic comforts. If we had prioritized aesthetic comforts we would have thought twice and avoided the placing of structures that are currently in the vicinity of the lake and built them with the objective not to lose the pristine look of the lake. If we had valued the comfort of a tree we would have avoided our need of claiming land by paving it. Is the damage irreversible? Well, we give more priority to money, if it hadn't been so then breaking down some structures and rearranging everything so that the lake looks natural and breaking up some of the paving so a tree can some day be accessed after every few meters.. wouldnt have been a far fetched thought. On the positive side though, I must say that on my way to work there is one other lake which I can view from a flyover and it has been spared its pristine look...thankfully.
A lake to look at and a tree to stand under, if not for these little things, what really is life for?
Thursday, November 18, 2010
We the Monkeys....
I found an article in the paper dated Nov 17, 2010, The Times of India, very amusing indeed! It said that -Officials of the forest are considering Family Planning(Vasectomy) for messy monkeys who stray into the Malnad villages of Uttara Kannada, in order to contain their menace, destruction of arecanut, coconut, paddy and sugarcane crops.... Environmentalist Shylaja Gornamane, citing reasons for the serious problem, said monkeys are forced out of forests by people collecting minor forest produce like fruits.
Isn’t it so obvious who the real menace here really are! It is the overpopulated human race which doesn't even spare the fruits in the forest that is the food for the monkeys! . And then we want to "Family Plan" for the monkeys!
Here's some interesting statistics related to population. 'It took about 2 million years for the world population to become 1 billion (1830), 100 years for 2 billion (1930), 30 years for 3 billion (1960), 15 years for 4 billion (1986) and 11 years for 5 billion (1997). The world population stands at 6.3 billion (2000)and is estimated to be around four times of it around 22.5 billion in 2100. In context of India, Post -independent India in 35 years (1947-81)literally added a second India, i.e doubled it's population. When the population doubles, resources do not double and the critical condition in India is that it’s resources can no longer sustain this exploding population. In 2000 India’s population touched 1 billion mark whereas in 1901 it was around 238 million. Although India occupies only 2.4% of the world's land area, it supports over 15% of the world's population. The population growth rate of the world is around 1.1% and that of India is around 1.8%. To achieve population stabilization, the growth rate should be ideally brought below 0.5% which has been achieved by most developed countries.
What is the problem in our country that we cannot contain our population growth? There are actually some very funny reasons!!!
Catholic priests are advising parishioners to have three or more kids as the catholic population in India seems to be reducing. What a way to increase people in a particular faith. Just reproduce more!
One of the Hindu fundamentalist group Bajrangdal dal, during the religion linked riots in Orissa in sept 2008, was reportedly against conversions to Christianity mainly because it would reduce Hindus to a minority and how can that be allowed when according to Hindutva philosophy, India is a land of Hindus!
Muslims reportedly prefer having five or more kids primarily because they want to increase the muslim population!
This attitude of trying to preserve a good measure of one's own religious population is the peculiar bane of the Indian Society. Really now, is our individual religion the only thing worthy of preserving? The land on which we stand, the water that we drink, the air that we breathe, ...don't we owe something to it? How can we claim to love a God we do not see when we cannot love the environment that we can see is suffering from the plunder and exhaustion of resources, and excessive pollution solely because of over population and mindless development of the Human Race.
Now what can the common Indian do to check population growth. Of course reproduction is the right of every Individual, and of course we need not follow any stringent norms like China did. But lets just not let our choice be determined by our religious leanings…Education of women and higher age of marriage has proved to be successful in keeping a low population growth rate in Kerala so far, and it has been an example for the rest of India to follow. But education is often no match to personal religious persuasions. We have to decide our priority here. Lets not let false religious sentiments deviate us from our one true responsibility to humanity and to humanity's only provider…the amazing creation of god called Earth. We owe it to our God to preserve it's most beautiful creation, the Earth, no not the umpteen religions which man created just so he won't die of boredom with nothing to argue about.....
Isn’t it so obvious who the real menace here really are! It is the overpopulated human race which doesn't even spare the fruits in the forest that is the food for the monkeys! . And then we want to "Family Plan" for the monkeys!
Here's some interesting statistics related to population. 'It took about 2 million years for the world population to become 1 billion (1830), 100 years for 2 billion (1930), 30 years for 3 billion (1960), 15 years for 4 billion (1986) and 11 years for 5 billion (1997). The world population stands at 6.3 billion (2000)and is estimated to be around four times of it around 22.5 billion in 2100. In context of India, Post -independent India in 35 years (1947-81)literally added a second India, i.e doubled it's population. When the population doubles, resources do not double and the critical condition in India is that it’s resources can no longer sustain this exploding population. In 2000 India’s population touched 1 billion mark whereas in 1901 it was around 238 million. Although India occupies only 2.4% of the world's land area, it supports over 15% of the world's population. The population growth rate of the world is around 1.1% and that of India is around 1.8%. To achieve population stabilization, the growth rate should be ideally brought below 0.5% which has been achieved by most developed countries.
What is the problem in our country that we cannot contain our population growth? There are actually some very funny reasons!!!
Catholic priests are advising parishioners to have three or more kids as the catholic population in India seems to be reducing. What a way to increase people in a particular faith. Just reproduce more!
One of the Hindu fundamentalist group Bajrangdal dal, during the religion linked riots in Orissa in sept 2008, was reportedly against conversions to Christianity mainly because it would reduce Hindus to a minority and how can that be allowed when according to Hindutva philosophy, India is a land of Hindus!
Muslims reportedly prefer having five or more kids primarily because they want to increase the muslim population!
This attitude of trying to preserve a good measure of one's own religious population is the peculiar bane of the Indian Society. Really now, is our individual religion the only thing worthy of preserving? The land on which we stand, the water that we drink, the air that we breathe, ...don't we owe something to it? How can we claim to love a God we do not see when we cannot love the environment that we can see is suffering from the plunder and exhaustion of resources, and excessive pollution solely because of over population and mindless development of the Human Race.
Now what can the common Indian do to check population growth. Of course reproduction is the right of every Individual, and of course we need not follow any stringent norms like China did. But lets just not let our choice be determined by our religious leanings…Education of women and higher age of marriage has proved to be successful in keeping a low population growth rate in Kerala so far, and it has been an example for the rest of India to follow. But education is often no match to personal religious persuasions. We have to decide our priority here. Lets not let false religious sentiments deviate us from our one true responsibility to humanity and to humanity's only provider…the amazing creation of god called Earth. We owe it to our God to preserve it's most beautiful creation, the Earth, no not the umpteen religions which man created just so he won't die of boredom with nothing to argue about.....
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
The Ultimate Killer Control- called Ingratitude
I was reading a well written, passionate book related to environment (Our Environment by Laeeq Futehally) and certain thoughts were triggered on reading.. how in a forest all the plants and animals are present in relation to the dominant species! For example in a typical rain forest an almost solid roof is formed by the tops of large trees. The dense mass of leaf material makes a permanent ceiling for the entire forest (since the trees are not deciduous). This prevents direct sunlight from reaching the ground, which means that there is little undergrowth.
It is obvious that because of the dominant tree canopy through out the year, only shade loving plants flourish except in pockets where a tree has fallen and sunlight enters in till the space is filled up again. It is also obvious that according to the dominant flora of a habitat are the fauna that survive in these habitats (animals etc dependent on the plants prevalent in a habitat).So the climax condition in any habitat is very much in accordance with the dominant species.
Nature has always been rearranging itself over its course of evolution according to the dominant species of each time frame. I wouldn’t say therefore that the destruction that has happened of nature is not natural!This may seem an odd statement, but consider this; It is nature’s course to create the environment as per the dominant species, which currently for the largest habitat Earth is Man..
Man has been altering the habitat Earth as per his whims and fancies. Which is in fact quite natural considering that nature created man an intelligent species which had the capability to overcome it’s natural enemies. Though all species occupy their own niche in a habitat in equilibrium, not encroaching on another's territory or food, still it would be wrong to say that it is on account of an all embracing charecteristic of the wild species. There is behind this undeniably the law of the survival of the fittest,which is quite a 'me first'or in other words a selfish charecteristic.In fact two species cannot occupy the same niche (role) for a long time because it results in competition which in turn results in the survival of the fittest and elimination of the other. Selfishness is also therefore a natural trait and each species' populaton is checked by each other's selfishness(more often than not).
Moreover a species that is introduced in an environment where it has no natural enemies, spreads uncontrollably, eating away resources that were for all the inhabitants of the habitat. Like the water hyacinth which is a native of South America brought to India as a garden plant. Having no natural enemies in India, it multiplies at a tremendous rate, and soon covers all of the water surfaces. It is a greedy plant that drinks up all the water of the lake on which it grows quite like man exhausting all the resources that it survives on.. The only difference about Man from the hyacinth, is that Man is a species that has overcome its enemies and therefore has grown in population to such a proportion that it has sapped the life out of its own environment. The plants and animals that can survive are only the one’s that man the dominant species allows to survive, quite like how only shade loving trees can flourish in forest with a thick canopy(although the dominant trees have their own natural controls intact unlike man who has brought under control all it's enemies).
Natural again definitely considering Man's Intelligence, but our intelligence also shows us that unless we check our population and recede our encroaching uncaring steps, we will exhaust the very resources we survive on. For example if the rate at which we consume bamboo for paper is slower than the rate at which we replenish it by planting, then soon we would have to do without paper. Our intelligence is putting efforts to prevent further harm to environment, but the effort is feable compared to the relentless and enormous damage to environment that we do collectively everyday.
Now the ultimate control has to be therefore with nature alone that created all this mess by creating Man. Our dominance of nature has not been against the natural growth and climax in natural habitats, and so it is only natural that there has to be a check not far off in future that is predestined for a species like ours. Aren’t we the dominant species altering our habitat making it unsuitable for our own survival which is what does happen naturally in succession (called reaction) in habitats which eliminates that errant species? Nature has never been helpless;it always has a check for everything, however slow in coming. The exhausting resources will itself check the population growth. Nature may be too loving to do anything overt, it only just recedes to non existence due to lack of love of its inhabitants.
The Natural Killer Control of the Intelligent, powerful, dominating, thoughtless and selfish species therefore,... is it's own ungratefulness! The end of such a greedy species such as water hyacinth and man is in the exhaustion and so destruction…of both; the habitat (nature) and consequently the ungrateful species. This end also looks natural in the whole scheme of things. Everything that has a beginning has a natural end.
Ungratefulness is the ultimate killer, or lets say the ultimate control. It saps the life blood out of the parent, the provider and finally with its death dies the dependent too.. The provider dies a slow death unloved, unappreciated, uncared and abused. Even if we cannot learn to be grateful, still, if we the self loving species have to save ourselves, we have to stop abusing and spitting on our one and only provider, the mother Earth..But then at this uncontrolled pace of human progress we do seem to have gone beyond the point of a ‘comeback’...For there is no killer like the killer called ingratitude. It has a life, movement and all devouring pace of its own that is not checked even by self love.
It is obvious that because of the dominant tree canopy through out the year, only shade loving plants flourish except in pockets where a tree has fallen and sunlight enters in till the space is filled up again. It is also obvious that according to the dominant flora of a habitat are the fauna that survive in these habitats (animals etc dependent on the plants prevalent in a habitat).So the climax condition in any habitat is very much in accordance with the dominant species.
Nature has always been rearranging itself over its course of evolution according to the dominant species of each time frame. I wouldn’t say therefore that the destruction that has happened of nature is not natural!This may seem an odd statement, but consider this; It is nature’s course to create the environment as per the dominant species, which currently for the largest habitat Earth is Man..
Man has been altering the habitat Earth as per his whims and fancies. Which is in fact quite natural considering that nature created man an intelligent species which had the capability to overcome it’s natural enemies. Though all species occupy their own niche in a habitat in equilibrium, not encroaching on another's territory or food, still it would be wrong to say that it is on account of an all embracing charecteristic of the wild species. There is behind this undeniably the law of the survival of the fittest,which is quite a 'me first'or in other words a selfish charecteristic.In fact two species cannot occupy the same niche (role) for a long time because it results in competition which in turn results in the survival of the fittest and elimination of the other. Selfishness is also therefore a natural trait and each species' populaton is checked by each other's selfishness(more often than not).
Moreover a species that is introduced in an environment where it has no natural enemies, spreads uncontrollably, eating away resources that were for all the inhabitants of the habitat. Like the water hyacinth which is a native of South America brought to India as a garden plant. Having no natural enemies in India, it multiplies at a tremendous rate, and soon covers all of the water surfaces. It is a greedy plant that drinks up all the water of the lake on which it grows quite like man exhausting all the resources that it survives on.. The only difference about Man from the hyacinth, is that Man is a species that has overcome its enemies and therefore has grown in population to such a proportion that it has sapped the life out of its own environment. The plants and animals that can survive are only the one’s that man the dominant species allows to survive, quite like how only shade loving trees can flourish in forest with a thick canopy(although the dominant trees have their own natural controls intact unlike man who has brought under control all it's enemies).
Natural again definitely considering Man's Intelligence, but our intelligence also shows us that unless we check our population and recede our encroaching uncaring steps, we will exhaust the very resources we survive on. For example if the rate at which we consume bamboo for paper is slower than the rate at which we replenish it by planting, then soon we would have to do without paper. Our intelligence is putting efforts to prevent further harm to environment, but the effort is feable compared to the relentless and enormous damage to environment that we do collectively everyday.
Now the ultimate control has to be therefore with nature alone that created all this mess by creating Man. Our dominance of nature has not been against the natural growth and climax in natural habitats, and so it is only natural that there has to be a check not far off in future that is predestined for a species like ours. Aren’t we the dominant species altering our habitat making it unsuitable for our own survival which is what does happen naturally in succession (called reaction) in habitats which eliminates that errant species? Nature has never been helpless;it always has a check for everything, however slow in coming. The exhausting resources will itself check the population growth. Nature may be too loving to do anything overt, it only just recedes to non existence due to lack of love of its inhabitants.
The Natural Killer Control of the Intelligent, powerful, dominating, thoughtless and selfish species therefore,... is it's own ungratefulness! The end of such a greedy species such as water hyacinth and man is in the exhaustion and so destruction…of both; the habitat (nature) and consequently the ungrateful species. This end also looks natural in the whole scheme of things. Everything that has a beginning has a natural end.
Ungratefulness is the ultimate killer, or lets say the ultimate control. It saps the life blood out of the parent, the provider and finally with its death dies the dependent too.. The provider dies a slow death unloved, unappreciated, uncared and abused. Even if we cannot learn to be grateful, still, if we the self loving species have to save ourselves, we have to stop abusing and spitting on our one and only provider, the mother Earth..But then at this uncontrolled pace of human progress we do seem to have gone beyond the point of a ‘comeback’...For there is no killer like the killer called ingratitude. It has a life, movement and all devouring pace of its own that is not checked even by self love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
