Big The Size , More The Issues!!

Ever since a child, I would tinker with Styrofoam to make model planes. Once the design issues were kinked out, I would try to expand its size. But every time I would expand the size, something or the other would fall apart or malfunction. Back then it confused me as to why a working design would pose a challenge at expansion. Growing up, I noticed these phenomenon’s in many different fields where a perfectly well functioning design or an idea would not work at a different scale, just like my plane design. Let me explain.

Economics: We have been told that Communism does not work. Soviet Union & North Korea bear witness to this fact in history. And we are told that Capitalism works. Many countries adopting free-market policies have prospered (compared to the Communist nations). In a Free-market economy, money is the means of signal for supply and demand. Communist Economies requires Central Planning. What I find interesting is structure of a family. A family runs on communist principles. You do not charge your kids for food. Everyone works according to his ability and need. This model may even work in large families. But as the size of the model expands, communism falls apart. Whereas if Capitalism were applied to a family unit, it would destroy the social fabric and the human element from relationships.

Knowledge:  Pick any major event in history – Roman Empire, WW1, WW2, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The more you read into its details, the opinionated the information gets with conflicting point of views. Plus, when we try to granulize details, we tend to lose sight of the bigger picture. This is very common in the field of Economics. We tend to mix things between correlation and causation, or the arrow of causation. The marginal utility of more details goes from beneficial to harmful. It is important to always keep the larger picture in sight. More information does not mean more wisdom.

Religion: Religion creates a baseline for morality. Practicing an old religion keeps us in touch with our history, regardless we understand it or not. But implementation of religion in its strictest sense twists matters in reality. Let’s take Pakistan for example. My parents tell me that Pakistan was one of the most prosperous nations in the region in the 60s & 70s. It was a very friendly and safe place. I see my parents wedding pictures and I do not see anyone looking too religious. Today, taking a random sample from Pakistan would show more people practicing religion. Yet, the moral sense didn’t improve proportionally. In fact, it’s common that neighbors no longer interact as much as they did 40 years ago. So what went wrong? I feel Law of Proportionality comes in handy explaining that we may have overextended a working principle. Or maybe it’s the ‘Institutionalization of religion’. Who knows! And that’s the thing with Complex social systems – they aren’t linear. In Complex systems causation is noise. Correlations & long term trends are the real signal carrier.

 Science: Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein explained the world of natural laws of gravitation via mathematical equations. Their discovered laws hold well with celestial bodies. But these very laws fall apart when applied to Quantum Mechanics, where there is no such thing as certainty and everything is probabilistic. The Law of Proportionality prevails even in the purest form of natural science. I am not arguing against the size as the factor in complex system but the layers of complexity. The more complexity is layered into a system, the higher its risks of failure. And there is nothing more complex than a human conscious. We can predict the durability of machines, we can calculate the half-life of radioactive materials, energy levels and even molecular processes but we cannot calculate rational or irrational responses of a conscious being. This very element of consciousness restricts us from ‘calculating’ future economic conditions via fancy models. It’s not just that we cannot calculate conscious irrationality but interpretation of data adds our own conscious  abstraction to our conclusion.

Can't come up with a title... NOT ready for publishing!

If you were one of the unfortunate victims of the deranged and vicious attack on the Christian community in Lahore a couple of months back, chances are that you are one of those really few people in Pakistan who still hasn’t applied the forgive and forget, or rather forget, policy related to the whole event. You were there; you know the whole story. No one else knows the cold, piercing fear that impaled your heart the night the police and then a mob gathered at the house of the accused. How you and your whole community were forced to flee, fearing the worst. The worst, which you’d been imagining too demented to actually happen. And then the sense of unreality that gripped you as you stared in horror at the ashes of what had once been something that belonged to you; at the charred roads and black smoke that encompassed what had once been your home; and the only thought running through your mind was:

You: What did I ever do to deserve this?

And then along comes one of the many people responsible for the burnings; the man of the hour, here to rescue you from the plight of your endless/conclusion-less pondering.

Deranged maniacs: You committed blasphemy. You insulted our Prophet (S.A.W).

You: But… I did not do anything.

Deranged maniac: Well, one of you did. You all had to be taught a lesson.

You: But the man who committed the actual blasphemy got arrested! Isn’t that lesson enough?

Deranged maniac: Pah! You’d like to think so, wouldn’t you? But it’s not as simple as that. In matters as serious as this, a stronger statement is always needed.

You: So basically, if one of us committed a blasphemous act, you deemed it fit to burn down the entire Christian community? Punish all for the crime of one? Just to send a ‘statement’?

Deranged maniac: Blasphemy is a very serious crime in our religion, boy. It must be dealt with a punishment as severe as the crime itself.

You: I don’t really get how the severity of one man committing blasphemy and that of burning down an entire community match up…

Deranged maniac: Spare me the clever talk, boy. You tell me this: what is your problem with our religion? We’re willing to live in peace with you Christians, but you’re not making that entirely possible, are you?

You: Oh, oh, so you’re calling punishing all of us brutally for one person’s crime ‘living in peace’?

Deranged maniac: Why are you portraying it like that? We’re the actual victims here!

You: You’re the victims here? HOW?

Deranged maniac: You heard me. We’re the actual victims here, just as we always are. Victims of your propagandas, always targeting our religion. This was merely a way to defend ourselves.

You: You burn down the entire Christian community to defend yourself?

Deranged maniac: That was the only way. For a strong statement was needed to keep you people in check, since you obviously can’t do that yourself. I repeat: blasphemy is a VERY serious crime in our religion.

You: Are you implying that we should keep a check on EVERYONE here and stop them from committing a crime; else it’s hell for all of us? That’s impossible.

Deranged maniac: (shrugs) Then deal with the consequences. Remember: as you sow, so shall you reap.

You: So you’re actually defending the mindless atrocity of your actions.

Deranged maniac: I stand by what happened. You deserved it.

You: Deserve – what, HOW? Okay, let me explain the situation to you in very simple words. Suppose a person committed a robbery. The punishment for that in Islam is that the hand of the one responsible gets cut off, right?

Deranged maniac: (nods vigorously) Yes.

You: Okay. So if a person steals, do you cut his hand off, or do you go and cut off the hands of his entire family as well?

Deranged maniac: Only the person who stole would be punished. Why his family? Islam is a very fair and just religion.

You: Exactly. So isn’t ours the same case? If a person commits blasphemy – what’s the penalty for blasphemy in Islam again?

Deranged maniac: (sourly) Death.

You: Exactly. So if a person commits blasphemy, would you not have him sentenced to death? Why burn all of our belongings and possessions down as well?

Deranged maniac: (growing frustrated) These two are completely different things!

You: HOW, pray tell? Or are you implying that blasphemy is a special case in Islam where you are allowed to take the law into your own hands and inflict whatever punishment you deem fit on the criminal?

Deranged maniac: Of course not. Islam is just.

You: Is it really? Your actions certainly suggest otherwise. Or maybe that’s because there IS no penalty for blasphemy in Islam, and you don’t know what to do about it!

Deranged maniac: (growing increasingly frustrated) There is. Stop insulting our religion.

You: I’m not insulting anything; I’m only pointing out what seems evident. Is it the fact that there is a penalty for blasphemy in Islam; you just don’t know what it is and thus decided to act of your own accord?

Deranged maniac: (suppressed anger) Are you implying that we are ignorant of the ways of our religion? Because if that’s the case –

You: Well, it’s either that, for I refuse to believe that considering how ‘perfect’ and ‘just’ Islam is, as you keep reiterating, it would allow something as senseless and unjust as this.

Deranged maniac: (seething) Do not doubt Islam, it is the fittest religion!

You: Then why are you continuously giving me reasons to doubt that?

Deranged maniac: I don’t know what you’re talking about.

You: I’ll TELL you what I’m talking about. I’ll tell you what really happened. The penalty for blasphemy in Islam is death; death for the criminal. But that isn’t enough for you people, is it? You always talk of Islam being the perfect religion – and maybe it is! Yet you don’t consider it perfect according to your intemperate views, and thus are redefining Islam, molding it according to your perspectives, and yet using it to defend your actions! You are using your religion, your beloved and PERFECT Islam, as an excuse for oppression. And that, my -

Deranged maniac: (takes out a gun and shoots you).

In Accompany With Fundamentalist, Religious, Realistic People !!

Alright, I've been thinking about this for a while...how to approach the subject.

Before I do, let me throw a few things at you, so you know where I'm coming from:

·         I'm not an atheist but believe on realistic approach towards the issue , but you knew that right? I don't like being linked with atheists because saying you're an atheist creates all sorts of connotations, the most obvious being "You're stupid for believing in god". But, many people admit that mainstream atheism (or at least the perception of it) is that it's combative and evangelical.

·         Science and reason is a starting point, and a means. It is not the endpoint, or an end in itself. So I tend not to get hung up on it, or get in arguments with people over science vs. religion. Particularly if the spiritual/atheistic person isn't intelligent enough to understand the argument. Fundamentalism, either scientific or religious, is a problem. The left has the same problem, identifying anyone on the right as stupid, uncaring, and wrong-headed.

Confirmation bias and systems-thinking orientation, I have 'rational/scientific' friends. I have conspiratorial friends. I have political, postmodern, and spiritual friends. All these friends look at the world though a set of lenses (their system of understanding), however I don't really have any friends who are able to employ more than one of these systems.

Funny thing is that all these people are convinced that they're right, and that their way of understanding the world is the one true way.

Problem is the world is full of people, with all these different knowledge systems. And those systems guide their behavior. If you want to understand why someone does something, you need to understand their motivation, and how they look at the world. Unfortunately, not many people are doing this. And for those who CAN do this, seldom have they weighed the pros and cons of the other knowledge system. They’ve only looked at it from their own knowledge system, to find the holes to attack, so they can feel confident and secure in their belief that their own knowledge system is the best knowledge system.

Ego: I Define As War Between Religion And Humanity

Did you ever wonder: what is wrong with us? I mean. . . as a species. As much as we love, and give, and aspire, we also lie, hate, and kill. These are pretty basic questions. What would it take to better ourselves morally, in ways  that  really  matter?

Spirituality is transformation. If we could understand and apply this principle, our lives would change dramatically. Transformation is how grapes become wine. Transformation is how wheat becomes bread. But what is the nature of this transformation for human beings? How does a schmuck become a saint, or at least a decent human being?

Most of us are stuck most of the time. Most of us fear real change because our egos are in control. The ego is a defence mechanism, but not necessarily a healthy or very effective one. The ego that is overbearing, self-centred, and manipulative, is actually full of self-doubt, insecurity, and fear.

Spirituality sees the ego as an instrument. It's not who we are but how we express what we are. The ego is like the saxophone of the soul. Play it well or not, it's out there on stage doing its thing.The wise harness their egos to their hearts. The lower self bows to the higher self. To use the language of religion, the ego can become "a servant of God."

But maybe we need a new language to express primordial truths. Many people seem not to find the old language of religion very convincing. It has bad associations. Religion, in many people's minds today, is associated with close-mindedness, intolerance, and even violence. But if you look at the record, religion is not primarily to blame. A closer look reveals that human egos are responsible for all this madness.

Take religion completely out of the picture and set about reforming the world, and, so far, what we have seen is Stalin or Mao. Modern secular ideological movements are actually responsible for much greater and more indiscriminate violence than any religion ever has been. Maybe that's because they mobilized greater powers than religion was able to do in the modern age. The case still stands.

This innate capacity is not so far-fetched and unverifiable as it at first sounds. The key to this spiritual sense, this perception of value, is described by the word "sacred." We don't need an explicit theology to let the sacred into our lives. Almost any human being can acknowledge that there is something sacred in the birth of a child, in nature, in an individual human life, in free will. This sense of the sacred, however, has become quite  scarce in contemporary life and that may be one of our biggest problems.

Most people have this capacity for empathy and relationship. Because this capacity is innate, believers have no monopoly on it and even atheists are not without it. It is in our nature as human beings. But are we too busy to allow this sense of the sacred into our consciousness? Is it that our consciousness is too filled with the  trivialities and banalities of modern life? Worse yet, are we filled with fear or hatred for "the other."

Spirituality, simply seen, is allowing ourselves to be transformed by all the challenges, sufferings, and joys of life. It is in the nature of our lives as human beings to emerge from states of limited consciousness into states of greater maturity and wisdom. We can change from being people obsessed with threats from a perceived "other," who need to parade with placards of hate, who even rationalize violence in a vain attempt to solve our problems and achieve our ends. What is needed today can better be achieved by cooperation, compassion, generosity, forgiveness, and love.

Beyond all the labels we apply to ourselves (Democrat, Republican, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, secular, atheist, or none of the above), we cannot afford to let the false self run our lives, or forget that all of humanity is one, and that some things are truly sacred.

Din e Elahi: Mass Peace Program

Jalal-ud-Din Akbar (1556-1605), the son of Humayun had three main phases in his life. One was firm belief in religion holding the founding tenets of Islam. The second started when he opened the doors of religious natter and dialogues in which he invited the religious scholars of different sects of Islam in the “Ibadat Khana” (the place of worship) but soon he was disillusioned with the attitudes of the Maulvies and scholars who started losing their tempers and even abused one another on petty issues.

Therefore the subsequent phase resulted in the promulgation of a new religion, din-e-Elahi. He accumulated the best practices of Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Jainism and propounded the new religion in 1581.

 There are ten virtues which the Din-e-Elahi professes.

(1) liberal-mindedness and generosity

(2) forgiveness of evil-doers and repulsion of anger with mildness

(3) abstinence from worldly desires

(4) non-attachment to the materialistic world

(5) careful weighing of pros and cons of actions to be taken

(6) performance of noble deeds with courage

(7) softness of voice and gentle speech

(8) good behaviour to others

(9) absolutely no connection with bad characters and evil-doers

(10) total dedication to God

Din-e-Elahi was more an ethical cult than a religion as it did not present any common prayers or system as all these eclectic religions offered. It was based on ethical values considering and propagating slander, lust, and pride as deadly sins whereas piety, kindness, mercy as the commonalities of the diverse religions and were appreciated. Slaughter of cow was prohibited to accommodate Hinduism and celibacy was venerated. The religion had no script or written documentations. Din-e-Elahi could triumph over only 19 adherents consisting mostly of Muslims. Hindus and other religions did not embrace it though they appreciated the religious move of Akbar.

Din-e- Elahi met with fierce criticism by the believers of Islam as he denied the foundations of religion by appreciating celibacy and the prohibition of cow. The Hindus also could not accept it as a religion. Din-e-Elahi was intended to create harmony and integrity among the different religions though it could not bring the desired fruits.I think interpretation of religious teachings according to the wishes and agenda of rulers is not a new phenomenon. This is almost as old as the religion itself. Many scholars refused to act as Qazi under Muslim rulers, just because they were afraid of to act according to ruler's wish and not according to God's law.

Do me a favour answering one question, what is most important? Fighting on basis of religion for years or accepting each other perspective and living together with peace!

What if Din-e-Elahi succeeded and there would be a no separation of South Asia? What would be the present scenario then?

Thanatophobia

"Who, me afraid of death?" "No way!" This is what human beings usually answer when questioned about their fear of death. I do not know how animals would react to a same question but animals have been seen risking their lives for their masters, no comments here. I feel that the answer of not being afraid of death comes from inexperience. It’s experience that makes us understand value of things and realize their potential. Most of us just hear or read about "Death" and have never seen it close to us This could be a reason why we say, "We are not afraid of death."
Thanatophobia is fear of death. Many people's fear of death is tied into their religious beliefs, particularly if they happen to be going through a period of questioning. Some people think that they know what will happen after death, but worry that they may be wrong. Some believe that the path to salvation is very straight and narrow, and fear that any deviations or mistakes may cause them to be eternally condemned.
Religious beliefs are highly personalized, I often see myself being dead in dreams and my fear is not death but sequences afterwards. So particularly, I am not afraid but possessive about my ideology and thinking on religious issue. But, why should I feel so? Talking on religious issue many will end up that there are things that do not need answers , you have to keep faith on it. In the world of 21st century, where the discoveries are resolving mysteries , we are still fearing of asking questions. To me, it's my moral right. I don't want to live the life where I was granted with the perfect religion but I wished to lit the light of beliefs in me.