Yesterday we had a beautiful morning. Yes it was a bit damp and the rain clouds were threatening to open up any moment, but everything looked green and fresh. It was a typical mid-summer day in New England.
I went biking.
I started from our home in Acton, biked to Concord Center, and then to the Carlisle State Park and back. As I was pedaling away, I was thinking about why I have started enjoying this activity so much that I am prepared to get up early, get all sweaty, and tired; and feel good about it at the end.
This is the answer that I got.
Biking starts from home. I do not need to go to a special place. Just get on the bike and start pedaling.
The destination is predictable. It is back home. I am not going anywhere in particular.
It is the journey that matters in biking. How you enjoy it is the only thing that counts.
I have started enjoying the journey. I like what I see and experience. I enjoy the majesty of tall spruces and firs. I like the deep green of maples. I look forward to seeing the sparkling ponds with Mallard ducks and Canada Geese. The Purple colored flowers are everywhere this time of the year. I bike on narrow, winding roads, almost dark because of the overcast sky and the thickness of forest.
Sometimes, I am going up hill. It is a lot of work. The legs start aching and the lungs are straining. I am tempted to get off and give up. But I continue. The thrill of getting to the top without giving up is great!
Sometimes, I am going down hill. I am going fast. The wind on the face feels great. Then I remind myself that I can not make a mistake when I am going fast. I can easily stumble and hurt myself pretty badly.
This bike is one with gears, like almost every bike you purchase in the West. I am constantly adjusting the gears to make sure that I am going as fast as I can within the limits of my strength.
People on their fancy bikes constantly by-pass me. They are may be 30 or 40 years younger. Let them go past. They are all going to the same destination, home. They will reach their destination faster. May be they will not enjoy the beauty surrounding them, as much as I do.
It starts raining, as was expected. I enjoy it as much as I would if the sun was shining. These are all parts of the biking experience. After all, in biking, you are exposed to the elements and not protected as you are in a car.
This is what biking is about.
And, in case you did not guess, what the life is about!
Monday, July 6, 2009
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Equalizer
An advanced stereo system deploys a component called graphic equalizer, or equalizer for short. Here is what it looks like.
It is a neat device which allows you to manually slide little buttons up and down, shaping the spectrum of the sound that comes out of speakers.
These sliders are a great representation of our attitudes on different things in life. This could be attitude on parenting, wealth, clothes, hedonism---almost anything. The only requirement is that the attitude being selected has distinct extreme positions one can take.
Take for example parenting. One can be a very strict parent, keeping a child under tight control, or very liberal, allowing the child to do whatever he/she likes to do. We can select our position---slide our button—between these extreme positions. Similarly, on the slider resenting hedonism, we can be very ascetic, not able to enjoy any physical pleasure in life, or a complete hedonist, who would put having fun as the number one priority.
How do we decide which position to slide the button to? I suppose, depending on the specific attitude under consideration, all of the usual factors come into play---our own upbringing, the norms of the society we live in, our life’s experiences, and perhaps some genetic reasons thrown in for good measure. I am reasonably certain that once we form the attitude, it is not easy to make it move. The button, once slid into position, gets stuck.
Taken in total, we can use a graphic equalizer---albeit a large one--- to provide a complete picture of our attitudes, with each of the hundreds of little buttons placed in a selected position.
The equalizer also helps represent how we form our opinions of others. A person whose button on a specific attitude is at a different location from ours is liable to face criticism from us. “He is just so strict with his child,” or “I can’t believe how they allow their son to get away with murder!”
Finally---one more point---our level of tolerance determines how far away the other person’s button needs to be before we get agitated. Some people are very tolerant (or at least show that they are), and have a wide band of tolerance around their equalizer settings, while other are not. For them, unless the settings of the other person are the same as theirs, there are grounds for scorn.
A graphic equalizer---a great representation of the lens through which we view the world and how we react to it.
It is a neat device which allows you to manually slide little buttons up and down, shaping the spectrum of the sound that comes out of speakers.
These sliders are a great representation of our attitudes on different things in life. This could be attitude on parenting, wealth, clothes, hedonism---almost anything. The only requirement is that the attitude being selected has distinct extreme positions one can take.
Take for example parenting. One can be a very strict parent, keeping a child under tight control, or very liberal, allowing the child to do whatever he/she likes to do. We can select our position---slide our button—between these extreme positions. Similarly, on the slider resenting hedonism, we can be very ascetic, not able to enjoy any physical pleasure in life, or a complete hedonist, who would put having fun as the number one priority.
How do we decide which position to slide the button to? I suppose, depending on the specific attitude under consideration, all of the usual factors come into play---our own upbringing, the norms of the society we live in, our life’s experiences, and perhaps some genetic reasons thrown in for good measure. I am reasonably certain that once we form the attitude, it is not easy to make it move. The button, once slid into position, gets stuck.
Taken in total, we can use a graphic equalizer---albeit a large one--- to provide a complete picture of our attitudes, with each of the hundreds of little buttons placed in a selected position.
The equalizer also helps represent how we form our opinions of others. A person whose button on a specific attitude is at a different location from ours is liable to face criticism from us. “He is just so strict with his child,” or “I can’t believe how they allow their son to get away with murder!”
Finally---one more point---our level of tolerance determines how far away the other person’s button needs to be before we get agitated. Some people are very tolerant (or at least show that they are), and have a wide band of tolerance around their equalizer settings, while other are not. For them, unless the settings of the other person are the same as theirs, there are grounds for scorn.
A graphic equalizer---a great representation of the lens through which we view the world and how we react to it.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
"Living for Others"
Who comes to mind if I ask you to name a few people who live (or have lived) for others?
Mahatma Gandhi? Martin Luther King? Dalai Lama?
What if I told you that the list of people who live for others is quite long? In fact it includes practically every one? You, me, and uncle Joe!
It is a matter of definition.
I am defining “living for others” as aspects of our lives that are driven by our desire to impress others. So, we live in a house much too big for what we need, we drive a car way too ostentatious for our comfort, or attend a cultural event which we have no desire to attend. All this to make sure the others are impressed with our wealth (or fine taste) and sing our praise (we hope).
If we remove those activities, there will be little material impact on the quality of our lives. However, our ego will be hurt---It will not get as much pampering as it is used to.
Everyone lives for others---in different manner or to a different degree. In fact, the only persons who may not be guilty of living for others by my definition would be the people who live for others by the conventional definition…the Gandhis, the Kings and the other saintly people.
I think there is an easy way for figuring out how much of our life we live for the others.
Here is the way:
What would you purchase or do if you could not show it to others or talk about it?
Your truthful answer to the above question will tell you how much of your life you are living for your self. Anything above it is for the others.
May 9, 2009
Mahatma Gandhi? Martin Luther King? Dalai Lama?
What if I told you that the list of people who live for others is quite long? In fact it includes practically every one? You, me, and uncle Joe!
It is a matter of definition.
I am defining “living for others” as aspects of our lives that are driven by our desire to impress others. So, we live in a house much too big for what we need, we drive a car way too ostentatious for our comfort, or attend a cultural event which we have no desire to attend. All this to make sure the others are impressed with our wealth (or fine taste) and sing our praise (we hope).
If we remove those activities, there will be little material impact on the quality of our lives. However, our ego will be hurt---It will not get as much pampering as it is used to.
Everyone lives for others---in different manner or to a different degree. In fact, the only persons who may not be guilty of living for others by my definition would be the people who live for others by the conventional definition…the Gandhis, the Kings and the other saintly people.
I think there is an easy way for figuring out how much of our life we live for the others.
Here is the way:
What would you purchase or do if you could not show it to others or talk about it?
Your truthful answer to the above question will tell you how much of your life you are living for your self. Anything above it is for the others.
May 9, 2009
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Glass House
“Those living in a glass house should not throw stones at others.”
I get it.
Given the incompatibility of stone and glass, you may want to minimize the likelihood of someone throwing a stone at your house. The best way to do so is not to throw stones at others.
So, I ask myself two questions. First, why do we throw stones, irrespective of whether we live in a glass house or that made out of brick? What purpose does that serves?
The second, at what point does our house become a “glass house,” figuratively?
The first question is perhaps simpler to answer. We throw stones because it is fun to do so. It stokes our ego…”Look at that fat guy…he is just being a burden on the society, unlike me, who is so thin. ” “look at that huge house…what do you think is their footprint on earth?”
Sometimes, but not always, the throwing, if openly done, may even result in the change of behavior of the person at the receiving end. In which case, there is some real value to throwing stones.
The second question, that dealing with our house being built of glass, is a bit tricky to answer, because our common sense says that everything is relative. Who am I to laugh at a guy, who I think is fat, if someone skinnier than me would consider me to be fat? How can I criticize someone living in an obscenely large mansion when for a guy in a hut, I live in an obscenely large mansion myself.
What moral authority do I have?
I claim that even in the midst of everything being relative, one can find absolute measures for what is “reasonable” and “acceptable,” and accordingly, I do have the moral authority to throw stones at someone violating those standards of reasonableness.
Take again the example of obesity. Although I am 50% heavier than a 100 pound person of my height, I would not be accused of being obese (and a burden on society) based on quite clear guidelines set by the medical profession. By that definition a person of 200 pounds would be overweight, and more than 300, obese. A 300 pound person can not claim that it is all relative and that compared to a 400 pound person he is thin. No, he is not. He is fat!
When the guidelines are not provided by science, there are other ways of judging what is reasonable. It is tougher, but can be done.
For example, how does one establish a guideline for what size of house is “reasonable” and what is obscenely large?
One can attempt that based on the size of human being and thus the area required for a family of four to comfortably sleep, cook, sit, etc. I think that a 500-sq feet (just to throw a number) house would be considered just enough for that family. 10 times more than that may be considered large (and beyond what is needed) and 100 times that would be considered obscene.
Thus I, living in a house of 2500 sq feet would have moral authority to throw stones at someone living in a 25,000 sq-feet house, even though I live in an opulent house for someone living in a 500 sq-ft house, because my house is “reasonable” by the standards of this society.
However, if I live in a house that is 10,000 square feet, I would start losing that moral authority and my house will suddenly become a glass house.
I get it.
Given the incompatibility of stone and glass, you may want to minimize the likelihood of someone throwing a stone at your house. The best way to do so is not to throw stones at others.
So, I ask myself two questions. First, why do we throw stones, irrespective of whether we live in a glass house or that made out of brick? What purpose does that serves?
The second, at what point does our house become a “glass house,” figuratively?
The first question is perhaps simpler to answer. We throw stones because it is fun to do so. It stokes our ego…”Look at that fat guy…he is just being a burden on the society, unlike me, who is so thin. ” “look at that huge house…what do you think is their footprint on earth?”
Sometimes, but not always, the throwing, if openly done, may even result in the change of behavior of the person at the receiving end. In which case, there is some real value to throwing stones.
The second question, that dealing with our house being built of glass, is a bit tricky to answer, because our common sense says that everything is relative. Who am I to laugh at a guy, who I think is fat, if someone skinnier than me would consider me to be fat? How can I criticize someone living in an obscenely large mansion when for a guy in a hut, I live in an obscenely large mansion myself.
What moral authority do I have?
I claim that even in the midst of everything being relative, one can find absolute measures for what is “reasonable” and “acceptable,” and accordingly, I do have the moral authority to throw stones at someone violating those standards of reasonableness.
Take again the example of obesity. Although I am 50% heavier than a 100 pound person of my height, I would not be accused of being obese (and a burden on society) based on quite clear guidelines set by the medical profession. By that definition a person of 200 pounds would be overweight, and more than 300, obese. A 300 pound person can not claim that it is all relative and that compared to a 400 pound person he is thin. No, he is not. He is fat!
When the guidelines are not provided by science, there are other ways of judging what is reasonable. It is tougher, but can be done.
For example, how does one establish a guideline for what size of house is “reasonable” and what is obscenely large?
One can attempt that based on the size of human being and thus the area required for a family of four to comfortably sleep, cook, sit, etc. I think that a 500-sq feet (just to throw a number) house would be considered just enough for that family. 10 times more than that may be considered large (and beyond what is needed) and 100 times that would be considered obscene.
Thus I, living in a house of 2500 sq feet would have moral authority to throw stones at someone living in a 25,000 sq-feet house, even though I live in an opulent house for someone living in a 500 sq-ft house, because my house is “reasonable” by the standards of this society.
However, if I live in a house that is 10,000 square feet, I would start losing that moral authority and my house will suddenly become a glass house.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Riding two horses
When we are growing up, we are given two contradictory messages. One is “do the best you can.” The other, “be happy with what you have.” If you are supposed to do the best you can, why would you stop striving for something better than what you have? On the other hand, if you are happy with what you have, why would you strive for anything better?
As we grow older, these messages manifest themselves in the following way.
We work hard to get the highest education, most money, most fame and most of whatever we decide our life’s preferences are. The culture of maximizing sets in, one in which nothing is every good enough. We find every situation wanting and every achievement a mere stepping stone to something better.
The message of being happy with what you have…it is almost forgotten by most, and for the others, it becomes the source of an aimless life without any drive or motivation. For most of us, who do not start with much, this type of complacency leads to hard life.
I think that one needs to have both to be truly happy. One needs to do the best one can AND be happy with what one has. This is not simple to achieve, because, as I said they contradict each other. It is like riding two horses at once. Perhaps the way out is to ride one horse at a time and figure out how and when to change horses.
So, we need to work hard to achieve, but at some point, we need to switch horse and enjoy what we have without being envious of people who have more or regretting what we have not been able to achieve. We should certainly try to live in the best place you can, but then get off that “achievement” horse and get on the “contentment” one. Learn to enjoy where you live, even if that place turns out to be Cleveland.
As we grow older, these messages manifest themselves in the following way.
We work hard to get the highest education, most money, most fame and most of whatever we decide our life’s preferences are. The culture of maximizing sets in, one in which nothing is every good enough. We find every situation wanting and every achievement a mere stepping stone to something better.
The message of being happy with what you have…it is almost forgotten by most, and for the others, it becomes the source of an aimless life without any drive or motivation. For most of us, who do not start with much, this type of complacency leads to hard life.
I think that one needs to have both to be truly happy. One needs to do the best one can AND be happy with what one has. This is not simple to achieve, because, as I said they contradict each other. It is like riding two horses at once. Perhaps the way out is to ride one horse at a time and figure out how and when to change horses.
So, we need to work hard to achieve, but at some point, we need to switch horse and enjoy what we have without being envious of people who have more or regretting what we have not been able to achieve. We should certainly try to live in the best place you can, but then get off that “achievement” horse and get on the “contentment” one. Learn to enjoy where you live, even if that place turns out to be Cleveland.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Why not Beethoven?
I have had the first hand opportunity to see an immigrant community grow. It has been an interesting journey that has allowed me to see how the growth in a new community leads to changes in its behavior.
When I came to Boston almost 40 years ago, there were relatively few Indians. To get Indian groceries, we had to go to New York, to see Indian movies we had to trudge to a monthly showing of Bollywood fare at MIT. To live in the US meant westernizing to some extent and learning what the west had to give. We had a lot more non-Indian friends, and a lot more opportunities to be exposed to the world besides us. Assimilation was not a choice; it was a necessity if one wanted to enjoy the finer aspects of life.
Things changed in the 80s when the trickle of Indians coming to this country became a stream. These were not just students, as was the case when I came, but mid-career professionals and relatives of those who were already established in this country.
Concurrently, the city of Boston started seeing the emergence of an Indian culture scene. It became a large community which permitted its members insularity from the rest of the world, if they preferred. An immigrant from India was now able to satisfy all his or her “needs” without venturing outside the “Indian cocoon”. In essence we created a ghetto, not in the classic sense, but in the form of a “virtual” entity embedded in the community at large but existing without many interactions.
Now there was no need to assimilate or try to learn what the west had to offer. When a “path of least resistance” was created by permitting the immigrants enjoy the cultural and entertainment that did back home, why would they bother learning something new? When Hindi films started becoming available, first on video tapes, and then in theaters, why would they need to watch “foreign” films (interesting…one should call them “native” films!!) When the Indian music scene emerged, why not enjoy it…and why take the more difficult path to learning to enjoy the Western Classical music? This leads me to my first observation:
A growing immigrant community goes through a short period when the door of assimilation is open. Once a critical mass is reached, it become self contained and the door gets shut because one does not need to venture outside. The assimilation now becomes unnecessary.
Currently, the Indian community is moving through the next step in its establishment in the US. It is making efforts to preserve and promote the finer aspects of the Indian civilization to the next generation. Now, a lot of Indian kids are learning Bharat Natyam instead of ballet, native languages, instead of Spanish and Indian classical music instead of western. That leads me to my second observation:
A community of recent immigrants values the preservation of old culture more than learning a new culture.
The operating word here is value. If someone’s child becomes an accomplished Indian dancer that is considered a higher achievement than if she learns ballet. Assimilation is almost looked down, or so it appears.
Of course one is free to do what one wants to do. That is the foundation on which this country is built. There is no need to assimilate now that we can surround ourselves with all things Indian.
But then I ask myself, are we missing something?
To me, living in the US provides an opportunity to not only be successful in life, at least financially, but also to learn and absorb what the Western culture has to offer. One does not need to abandon the old culture to learn something new.
If we listen to, and enjoy Pundit Jasraj, why not learn to enjoy Beethoven?
When I came to Boston almost 40 years ago, there were relatively few Indians. To get Indian groceries, we had to go to New York, to see Indian movies we had to trudge to a monthly showing of Bollywood fare at MIT. To live in the US meant westernizing to some extent and learning what the west had to give. We had a lot more non-Indian friends, and a lot more opportunities to be exposed to the world besides us. Assimilation was not a choice; it was a necessity if one wanted to enjoy the finer aspects of life.
Things changed in the 80s when the trickle of Indians coming to this country became a stream. These were not just students, as was the case when I came, but mid-career professionals and relatives of those who were already established in this country.
Concurrently, the city of Boston started seeing the emergence of an Indian culture scene. It became a large community which permitted its members insularity from the rest of the world, if they preferred. An immigrant from India was now able to satisfy all his or her “needs” without venturing outside the “Indian cocoon”. In essence we created a ghetto, not in the classic sense, but in the form of a “virtual” entity embedded in the community at large but existing without many interactions.
Now there was no need to assimilate or try to learn what the west had to offer. When a “path of least resistance” was created by permitting the immigrants enjoy the cultural and entertainment that did back home, why would they bother learning something new? When Hindi films started becoming available, first on video tapes, and then in theaters, why would they need to watch “foreign” films (interesting…one should call them “native” films!!) When the Indian music scene emerged, why not enjoy it…and why take the more difficult path to learning to enjoy the Western Classical music? This leads me to my first observation:
A growing immigrant community goes through a short period when the door of assimilation is open. Once a critical mass is reached, it become self contained and the door gets shut because one does not need to venture outside. The assimilation now becomes unnecessary.
Currently, the Indian community is moving through the next step in its establishment in the US. It is making efforts to preserve and promote the finer aspects of the Indian civilization to the next generation. Now, a lot of Indian kids are learning Bharat Natyam instead of ballet, native languages, instead of Spanish and Indian classical music instead of western. That leads me to my second observation:
A community of recent immigrants values the preservation of old culture more than learning a new culture.
The operating word here is value. If someone’s child becomes an accomplished Indian dancer that is considered a higher achievement than if she learns ballet. Assimilation is almost looked down, or so it appears.
Of course one is free to do what one wants to do. That is the foundation on which this country is built. There is no need to assimilate now that we can surround ourselves with all things Indian.
But then I ask myself, are we missing something?
To me, living in the US provides an opportunity to not only be successful in life, at least financially, but also to learn and absorb what the Western culture has to offer. One does not need to abandon the old culture to learn something new.
If we listen to, and enjoy Pundit Jasraj, why not learn to enjoy Beethoven?
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Neocortex and Religion
Regarding religions, I have some thoughts to share on why we as humans have created them and what needs do they fulfill.
It all began with a unique ability we have
As human beings, we have a unique ability to think of "consequences of actions". This is so because we have a well developed “neocortex” in our brains. A direct result of this evolutionary development is that we can consciously take actions that would result in changing our lives for good.
What are the implications of this ability?
In the old days, this meant learning of consequences of planting a seed, so we could create an agricultural society. This was a major reason why the agricultural society developed. In the modern day context, we work hard toward earning a degree because we know that it will lead to betterment of our lives.
This ability is a blessing and a curse.
As the above examples indicate the ability is a blessing, because our civilization would not have developed otherwise. Because of this ability, we can live in comfortable houses, eat god food and have physical enjoyments that an animal can not. This ability has made us the most successful animal in the world.
However, what is not obvious is that this ability to think of consequences of our actions is also a curse because it causes us to live under a constant stress.
The stress comes from two directions:
(1) Regrets for not having taken right action in the past, and
(2) Fear that we will not take the right action to get the best out of our future.
In the above, most of time we are using our materialistic success as a yardstick. So, the regret stems from not having the type of wealth we envisioned for our selves. “If only, I had accepted that job, when it was offered, I would have been much richer.” So it is for the fear part. We are afraid that we will make the wrong investment decision today that would cause us to live in endless poverty in the future.
How can we handle this curse?
The way we can handle this constant stress is in two ways
The first option is to believe in some supreme deity, God, who has control of our life. God did what he did and will do what he wants to do. Thus we should not regret having taken a specific action in the past nor should we worry about the future. We now have transferred, at least partially, the responsibility for taking “right” action to God. No responsibility and therefore no stress.
The second option is to learn and internalize a couple of things: (1) learn how to live in the present by training our mind and (2) learn to minimize the importance of physical pleasures.
If we master the first discipline, we will live in the present and thereby prevent our mind from wandering into past, regretting our past actions, or into the future, worried about not taking the right actions. What a soothing state to achieve!
When we master the second discipline, we figure out that the materialistic yardsticks are unimportant. If that is so, why should we regret not having achieved a specific level of material happiness by our actions in the past, or stress about actions we are going to take now that would affect our future level?
Religions are based on one of the above two ways to handle the curse
The religions provide us a way to handle the stress caused by our unique ability to think of the consequences of our actions.
The monotheistic religions, Christianity, Islam and Judaism, favor the first option outlined above; advising (insisting?) that their adherents put their faith in God. It was God’s will that you are living under poverty, not your fault. Also, you are in good hands with God…stop worrying about not taking the right action and thereby screwing up your future.
Buddhism and Jainism (among others) favor the second option. These religions insist upon their followers live in the present and consider material things to be immaterial. This way, we do not have the regrets and fears caused by our unique ability.
Hinduism is somewhere in between. It has elements of both. Like the first group, Hindu religion does have gods and goddesses in whose hands you can safely put your fate into. It also has the concept of shunning material pleasures.
I know this hypothesis is a gross simplification of the question of why religions were created and what needs they fulfill, but it provides me a framework to think about.
It all began with a unique ability we have
As human beings, we have a unique ability to think of "consequences of actions". This is so because we have a well developed “neocortex” in our brains. A direct result of this evolutionary development is that we can consciously take actions that would result in changing our lives for good.
What are the implications of this ability?
In the old days, this meant learning of consequences of planting a seed, so we could create an agricultural society. This was a major reason why the agricultural society developed. In the modern day context, we work hard toward earning a degree because we know that it will lead to betterment of our lives.
This ability is a blessing and a curse.
As the above examples indicate the ability is a blessing, because our civilization would not have developed otherwise. Because of this ability, we can live in comfortable houses, eat god food and have physical enjoyments that an animal can not. This ability has made us the most successful animal in the world.
However, what is not obvious is that this ability to think of consequences of our actions is also a curse because it causes us to live under a constant stress.
The stress comes from two directions:
(1) Regrets for not having taken right action in the past, and
(2) Fear that we will not take the right action to get the best out of our future.
In the above, most of time we are using our materialistic success as a yardstick. So, the regret stems from not having the type of wealth we envisioned for our selves. “If only, I had accepted that job, when it was offered, I would have been much richer.” So it is for the fear part. We are afraid that we will make the wrong investment decision today that would cause us to live in endless poverty in the future.
How can we handle this curse?
The way we can handle this constant stress is in two ways
The first option is to believe in some supreme deity, God, who has control of our life. God did what he did and will do what he wants to do. Thus we should not regret having taken a specific action in the past nor should we worry about the future. We now have transferred, at least partially, the responsibility for taking “right” action to God. No responsibility and therefore no stress.
The second option is to learn and internalize a couple of things: (1) learn how to live in the present by training our mind and (2) learn to minimize the importance of physical pleasures.
If we master the first discipline, we will live in the present and thereby prevent our mind from wandering into past, regretting our past actions, or into the future, worried about not taking the right actions. What a soothing state to achieve!
When we master the second discipline, we figure out that the materialistic yardsticks are unimportant. If that is so, why should we regret not having achieved a specific level of material happiness by our actions in the past, or stress about actions we are going to take now that would affect our future level?
Religions are based on one of the above two ways to handle the curse
The religions provide us a way to handle the stress caused by our unique ability to think of the consequences of our actions.
The monotheistic religions, Christianity, Islam and Judaism, favor the first option outlined above; advising (insisting?) that their adherents put their faith in God. It was God’s will that you are living under poverty, not your fault. Also, you are in good hands with God…stop worrying about not taking the right action and thereby screwing up your future.
Buddhism and Jainism (among others) favor the second option. These religions insist upon their followers live in the present and consider material things to be immaterial. This way, we do not have the regrets and fears caused by our unique ability.
Hinduism is somewhere in between. It has elements of both. Like the first group, Hindu religion does have gods and goddesses in whose hands you can safely put your fate into. It also has the concept of shunning material pleasures.
I know this hypothesis is a gross simplification of the question of why religions were created and what needs they fulfill, but it provides me a framework to think about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
