Wednesday, December 20, 2023

Do we, the Mankind need a religion in the 21stcentury?

 Do we, the Mankind need a religion in the 21stcentury?

My simple answer to that is a BIG NO.
 
Religion divides people and it was a creation of mankind somewhere around 3000 years ago in the rich and fertile Middle East.
 
The time scale of three thousand years is statistically insignificant, if the man’s current estimated evolutionary diversion, if we assume it had taken place at about 50,000 years ago.
 
Drastic genetic change occurred around 3 to 5million years ago and it took minimum of two and a half million years for establishment of humanoids.
 
In that sense 3000 years is nothing but from the time man started counting millenniums, this 3000 years had become historically important.
 
I believe it is the time of resurgence of the idea or the need for some form of arbitrary religion for  human exploitation.
 
After 40,000 (10,000 years ago) years from that point agricultural civilization started to emerge and in which part of the world, I would not guess.
It could have been anywhere, given the evolution of grasses to present grain producing wild cereals.
 
This estimation go haywire, if we assume humanoids were galactic explorers, in the style of “Star Wars and visitors from the outer space or aliens.
 
My classification during this period of 50,000 can be simplified in few term.
1. Man hunted by the beast.
 
2. Man hunting the beast including woolly mammoth.
The woolly mammoth coexisted with early humans, who used its bones and tusks for making art, tools, and dwellings, and the species was also hunted for food.
It disappeared from its mainland range at the end of the Pleistocene 10,000 years ago, most likely through climate change and consequent shrinkage of its habitat, or hunting by humans, or a combination of the two.
 
Isolated populations survived on St. Paul Island until 6,400 years ago and Wrangell Island until 4,000 years ago.
 
3. Gatherer
 
4. Trader
Around 5000 years ago trading elephants hunted from North Africa.
They were supplying war effort of Romans before their decline.
These traders coming probably from Middle East probably did not have a religion.
 
5. Current civilization was seeded around Egypt.
 
6. Theory of God emerged somewhere around 3000 probably nearer Israel.
 
7. Explosion of religions in Indian subcontinent except Russia and China.
 
8. The current working religion is Money.
 
There is no place for any other religion other than money.
 
Whichever way one looks this scenario, the final working philosophy is to generate money.
 
The concepts of Capitalism or Socialism does not mater if they are weighed with money.
 
My analysis is based on right and wrong principle.
 
It differs from the good or bad principle of all the religions.
 
My definition of Right is neither good nor bad or neutral.

In other words might is right.

Its appropriateness is to current needs and not to the past.

If a Muslim can kill another as an infidel and say it is godly thing and good, there is something radically wrong.
 
Killing or war is not the right way.
 
It is the beastly behaviour in our gene makeup expressed at random.
 
In the 21st century we need our animal genes to be suppressed.
 
The religion originated in the name of god and good but it has not delivered its key concepts to the current needs of the mankind.
 
Christianity and Muslim Divide started the Bible War.
 
Judaism in the Middle East and the Oil needs of America instituted the ongoing terrorism and war in the Middle east.
 
The way UNO drew lines in the world map quite arbitrarily after the World War II and made countries to whims and fancies of UK, USA and France (Italy, Germany and Japan were left out) and left Palestine to their own devices.
 
It is not rectified to this day.
 
So it is time for the UNO to declare “A day for People Without Religion” (in other words people without division) is timely and appropriate.
 
China did not have a religion for over 5000 years.

The Buddhism reached there about 1700 years ago and was established in there in 1400 years ago and over 1000 years it gradually disintegrated.

For some reason or other, they hated Buddhism and Ma’O Se Tung did the finishing touch.

Does it mater to Chinese citizens?
 
Russia did not have a state religion for the last 150 years, after the demise of the Tsar and Rasputin, the devil in the Church of Russia.
 
Does it matter to Russians?
 
According to one of my Indian friends, there are 1 billion Indians and one billion gods.
 
Does it make an Indian free of abject poverty?
 
The whole African continent did not have a religion until Muslims from the North and Christianity from the South almost by force (Belgium was the biggest culprit) converted them.
 
Does it mean now the Africans are liberated?
 
I suppose Nelson Mandela (astute vision) never declared his religious status.
 
For him humanity was more important.
 
(The right thing is to decimate terrorism be that it may be, white supremacists, JVP, LTTE, ISIS, Mossads, Natzy Hitler or any other dictator).
 
In fact, we got rid of one dictator by popular vote but he is waiting in the wing for another fling, his God willing (not any other God).
 
I sometime think this tiny country was the breeding ground for radicalism and terrorism.
 
It is the minority who rules the majority.
 
Even in this country, Buddhism has fallen prey to politicians with ulterior motives and corrupt monks trading elephants.
 
This country would become a better place if we declare once a months a holiday for people without a religion, just like the Poya (including Satara Poya) day (for Buddhists), Friday (Muslims) and Sunday (Christians).
 
Unfortunately there is no day for Hindus and they are all peaceful beings.
 
If one set off 12 days for the above and another four the Tamils we still have 14 days left.
 
We must reserve at least one day a month (before these 14 days are grabbed by various extreme sets of religious or political groups) in the coming Constitution for the non believers of religion and specially for the non believers of our politicians and politics.
 
On that day, the government should keep all liqueur bars open for only non believers (believers should be restrained in their own houses or in the Church, Mosque or Temple).
 
Come to think about and looking at the budget figures I am convinced believers (all religions combined) drink much more than the non believers.
 
The non believers although in the minority should contribute to the state coffers by enjoying a drink once a month.
 
For some in this country (not me) democracy is as sacred as religion but we find a way to send only the corrupt people to the parliament by default.
 
For me it is one fool out 100 non fools who makes the decisive vote (49 against 51).
 
He is often the most foolish of the lot but ends up as the leader of the country.
 
This is why, I never registered for the vote (over 40 years) come elections and feel proud that I am liberated from not only religion but also from DUD political leaders of this country.
 
In other words, I am emancipated by default, not out of convention, contention or context or conviction.
 
I suppose all the other guys and girls consider me gone nuts.
 
It does not matter to me, this country is full of nutty people and they are in one asylum called august assembly or the parliament.
 
There is a section in the Apaya International reserved for them when they demise.
 
I wish I become the Director General there, since our Solicitor General always sees lines between lines in the interpretation of our law.
 
It is called transparency.
 
Our Minister for Justice say hooray to this mediocre guy / girl in the name of non interference (Mara Logic Ekkak!). 
 
Strangely, he happens to be the Minister for Buddhism.
 
I think he is trying to attain SOVAN or higher sublime state during his term of office.
 
I hope he will give up the post when that happens.
 
An average citizen until then should bite his teeth (not in he courts of law, he will be charged).

Vulgar Deeds of Monks

Vulgar Deeds of Monks

One should read this in tandem with “Vulgar Talks for Monks”.

I never thought that I might have to use this phrase to describe some of the deeds of Monks with political power.

This has nothing to do with Vinaya (Set of rules passed down by oral tradition) which outlines 300 odd major and 1000 odd minor strictures.

I will list a few below.

1. Possession of more than two robes.

2. Possession of money more than what is required of travel (this was a concession when public transport came into existence).

They are meant to be walking spreading Dhamma and no two monks should take the same path having come to a four way intersection.

3. Possession of vehicle for transport.

4. Possession of land.

5. Possession of books other than Thripitaka, which is colossal.

6. Possession of Televisions.

7. Possession of Elephants.

The sole purpose of this is to highlight the number 7.

I think very soon our monks will ascend to Nibbana on the back of a poor elephant.

I am sure once they ascend there the poor animal is dispensed for good to rot probably in hell.

I am not sure how the modern articles like mobiles, laptops, digital texts and multimedia applications would apply in the context of Vinaya.

A modern Sangayana is necessary to validate them in posterity as essential items ‘On the road to Nibbana’.

I am also not sure of Television Displays in the trend of TV stars.

I sometime incline to think when the Thripitaka is fully digitalized and translated to many languages as possible (this is not happening now) the existence of Monks may become redundant except for the SOLE practice of meditation for ultimate goal SEEKING of TRUE salvation or Nibbana.

The way the things are developing there may be monasteries dishing out Nibbana certificates at four levels, Sovan, Sukrudhagami, Anagami, and Arhath.

I hope, I should kick the bucket before that eventuality of having to register for salvation and it is open for all, in the World Wide Web.

I am ambivalent about the right of the monks to become politicians and a member of the parliament.

As a true democrat, I say YES for an individual’s right to exercise political right, if not the Wisdom or the better judgment.

 Having said that I am uneasy if they continue to done the robe after being duly elected.

 The point is conflict of interest, priesthood or the legislative functions (law of the land).

Suppose the legislature agrees for capital punishment would they vote YES or NO.

I feel very uneasy to see any person (whatever the religion that does not matter) in official capacity especially in the parliament (sometimes in civil capacity, too) display their identity in dress code, hair style, facial hair decoration or by any other mean.

It is a hindrance in the name of fair judgment and a Universal dress code for the assembly is mandatory.

I hope this fact is taken into consideration when drafting the new constitution.

I have no problem with any form of national dress (in the form of kilt in Scotland) however ugly and cumbersome for it to be worn.

I prefer the loin cloth for those without any educational qualifications and the dress should indicate their educational level but not their professional status (Army, Navy, Air Force, Doctor, Lawyer, Accountant, professor or University cloak).

The NEW dress, with neutral colour (not the party colour) should be very simple and no civilian should be permitted to wear this dress for any civilian function.

It should be smart and should not look like a school UNIFORM or Police, Army or Navy. 

The idea is, the moment they wear this dress they are in a different mould and feel proud (whether in power or in opposition).

This stricture like VINAYA for monks is only inside the assembly to discipline the present unruly Guys / Girls trained by MA Ra and the CLAN in our legislature.

In other words if a monk wears a particular robe they are expected to behave as such upholding the VINAYA and not like The BBS THUGS.

Under Ma Ra their status was steam rolled like RATS and this new TREND would harbinger good behaviour in parliament and uplift their status in the legislature as TRUE DEMOCRATS (listen to the alternative views). 

Equally, the politician should not wear this dress for civilian functions other than the official duties in the assembly. 

They are free to wear any other dress including PARTY dress and colour in public so that they can freely mix with their electorate or supporters.

If the speaker wears a particular dress why not MPs?

I never EXPECT this proposal could see the day light.

It is only a wishful thinking.

 

Vulgar talk to Monks

So I delve into Dhamma in that sense to Samutta Nikaya (56:10) to repeat a verse told to monks would suffice to convince myself why I should not be a journalist. 
This can be rephrased why a Buddhist monk should be a conveyor of Dhamma message sans journalistic endeavour.

 

Buddha states 28 of his qualifications of vulgar talk to monks.

Numerically in order as was said by the Lord Buddha are as follows.

Manifold vulgar talks are

1. Talk about Kings (Presidents, Prime Ministers and Tyrants)
2. Talk about Robbers (Robber barons, the multinational businessmen)
3. Talk about Ministers
4. Talk about armies
5. Talk about dangers
6. Talk about wars
7. Talk about food
8. Talk about drink
9. Talk about cloths
10. Talk about dwellings
11. Talk about garlands 
12. Talk about perfumes
13. Talk about relations
14. Talk about conveyances (transfer of property)
15. Talk about villages
16. Talk about hamlets
17. Talk about towns
18. Talk about countries
19. Talk about women
20. Talk about heroes
21. Talk about street talk
22. Talk about ghosts
23. Talk about ancestors
24. Talk about gossip
25. Talk about land
26. Talk about sea
27. Talk about gain (credit market)

28. Talk about loss (stock exchange)

 

To this another four are added in another verse
1. Eternity (unending)
2. Annihilation (reduced to nothing)
3. Sensual gratification

4. Self mortification

What a Buddhist monk as a journalist should talk about are about greedlessness, hatelessness and undeludedness (wisdom) and any other talk is senseless and does not lead to liberation or salvation.

Moon Theory

I have my own theory.
 

This is not as outlandish as the theory of Binary Star (dead star gives the stability) origin of our solar system.

It is all related to the meteorite hit/s of the past, certainly longer than 65 millions years.

This hypothesis is based on the idea of the non existing part of the
Gondwanaland  and the relative lack of land mass below India and Ceylon.

The "Theory is", the great impact that the meteorite had caused to the landmass (
Gondwanaland) to carve out a moon for our earth.

In other words earth came first.
 

The moon came second.
 

The moon is not spherical but caved in (on the not visible side).

The gravitational stability was created due to this "cave in" and the spinning of the moon synchronised with the earth due to this impact (that caused caving on the non visible opposite side). 

It is also possible much of the moon mass  was burned away or extinguished!

Additionally I DO NOT believe America landed on the moon on the first attempt.

Landing would have been difficult due to this "caving" on the surface.

Additionally the shadows created by caving in may even hinder perfect visibility.

The craters on the moon would have been due to succession or series of meteorite hits. 

Because of lack of atmosphere and no weathering effect these craters are still visible on the other side of the moon.

The effects of the meteorite hits would have amplified the caving effects (that was already present) at the time of its origin due to a massive meteorite hit.

Even though the crust or material is the same moon's age is equivalent to 4.5 billion years minus the time when the meteorite hit the earth. 

Assuming, it happened 3 billion years ago the age of the moon is only 1.5 billion years.

So any meteorite hits on the earth before 1.5 billion years ago would have no corresponding craters on the moon, if the moon was also hit by same the meteorite shower..

On earth due to weathering effect craters are NOT visible.

This hypothesis is plausible.

But the moon landing was an American Hoax!

Americans without the help of Stanly Kubrick are very good producing fantastic films.

I come to the age of realizing fictional films watching is a waste of my time and they nowhere near Truth or Reality.
 

2000 Odessy is one example.
 

Philosophically speaking Truth or Absolute Truth is hard to fathom.

For 2500 years we believed in Creator God and believing moon landing is a similar fallacy.

Tell me the benefit of landing a manned object (Russians did land an unmanned object, a decade ago) on the moon with an object 3 times as heavy as the Russian unmanned object (without men on board)?

The rocket had to be bigger and the total expenditure probably 5 times, the cost of Russians.

Russians are clever but Americans are stupid economically speaking, if not technologically.

Russians have spend the saved money on missiles (to protect the mother land) with AI technology which the Americans are far behind in manufacturing and the Americans have lost the battle on earth (in Ukraine).

That is the bottom line of thinking of Russians.

Save the mother land at any cost!