Religious Harmony !

December 6th is a black day for the Indian Democracy. Whatever be the motive for the demolition, I do not know whether this act can be justified. Those who initiated this brutal act may have their reasons and the other party may still have resentment to counter attack. What happens often is that any event, sometimes even a political blunder or some vested interests of the politicians are often identified with religion and therefore they are seen to be religious conflicts rather than the blunder of some politicians or fundamentalism.   

All of us do know that religions, irrespective of their place of origin, keep Love as their central teaching.

Everyone thinks that his religion is the greatest. His religion is the truest and the purest. I do not think that this is wrong. When one believes he accepts a particular creed because it is meaningful to his life. But communicating one’s religious truth often ends up in violent conflicts. One wants to prove his religion’s love and non-violence by violence. Proving one’s love through violence can never be possible.

Comparative studies have shown that non-violence is the foundational teaching of all religions. Mere writings about the message of love or non-violence cannot reduce the religious conflicts. It can be done only with the believers’ act of trust and love. One has to trust the other and more love the other forgiving the mischievous deeds of the other. Only when we find someone transcending the act of rebellion and revenge, trust can be built.

Unless this love is taken to heart

 and we trust and respect and love one another, 

we will not be able to live as true believers.

MODERN AND PRE-MODERN

The former prime minister of Britain, Mr. Tony Blair, who is a Roman Catholic, has reacted to the recent violent protests that caused the life of many people all over the world, saying, “I think what we shouldn't do is lose sight of what the real issue is, and the real issue is how do people actually think it is justified to react in a way that ends up innocent people being killed. […] So no, this is a profound problem; it’s a problem, as I say, which is about the struggle of modernization. The good news is, in the end, the modernizers will win incidentally, but it will take a long time to do.”[1]

One can well agree with Tony Blair that no one can justify the death of innocent persons. He is right in asserting that demanding the persons behind the film should be held responsible. But I am interested in his comment about modernity.

Modernization for most westerners means that it is about the freedom of the individual. A society is considered to be modern only when the individual freedom is attained. There should not be a major issue with this understanding. The further explanation at the comment of Blair is to indicate that one should be able to respect the views of others. This means that the modern people will be more tolerant and magnanimous in accepting the view of others even if it is a false view.

But how is that the individual who expects that everybody’s view should be respected does not respect the view of others even if it is a false one. I explain: sorry to use the name of Blair. If Blair thinks that the modern notion of freedom is to respect the view of others, then the Muslims should be able to respect the view of the director of the Movie. That is the sign of being modern. Because they are not modern, then they react violently.

My question is – if the views of others should be respected, why the director, who is a modern, does not respect the view of the millions of Muslims. 

Who is pre-modern – the director or the Muslims? Or Both?

*****

The irony is that the sister-in-law of Mr. Tony Blair 

converted to Islam 

three years after his conversion to Catholicism.

***** 

---

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09/17/tony-blair-reaction-to-anti-islam-film-absurd_n_1889232.html

TEACHERS

Everyone will agree that teachers have a role to play in our life. Some value it positively and others negatively. Those who have had great teachers will appreciate teachers and those who have ‘bad’ teachers will hate them if not curse them.

A good teacher is great not because he is an intellectual but because he is able to relate with the students well in such a way that he could motivate them to think on their own and to understand life in a better perspective. But our educational system does not demand teachers who can play the kind of role that they can play in the aspect of motivation.

All that our system demands is that one can be a good teacher when he has the ability to transfer from the ‘printed format to the unprinted format’, that can be stored in the mind! In this way the teachers have no the active role of a teacher. However we still are able to find good teachers in this format too. The students who have the ability to draw the impressions of the mind to the practical problems do appreciate such teachers. Say those who are good computer engineers will definitely appreciate the teacher’s contribution and his communicative skills because of which the student had an interest for the subject.

Some do not have good teachers not because they are bad as such as but lacking the skill, i.e. the ability to communicate well either from the printed one or from their memory. It is because of this some students hate a subject not because the subject is less interesting but because the teachers are less interesting.

I am talking of good teachers in two senses: one who can communicate well the subject matter and one who can relate well with the students who can inspire them in the minimum way, at least. Even if the communication skill is lacking in a teacher, he could very well be called a good teacher because of the second. Because one likes the teacher, one may also develop a liking for the subject.

Well. I want to speak about a good teacher in another sense, not restricted to the realm of the school education. Hr is one who can help the students to become teachers of their own life. A teacher here is called good not because he makes his students well informed and thus able to communicate back to others what he has learned, but because he makes the students to think, ask questions, and to make him a teacher of his own. The teacher makes the students to live on his own independent of the teacher – not in the sense of searching for a job and live on his own but one can know the meaning of being human in the world and to set the framework of his life. In this way even a teacher of history can make the students to ponder from the events of history to think of the contemporary situations. But I do not know whether the educational system will allow such teachers to flourish at all.

I have had good teachers in all sense: A teacher who is good communicator but not kind; a teacher who is gentle and a good communicator; a teacher who is gentle but not a ‘motivational teacher’’; a teacher who is gentle, intellectual, communicator as well as motivational. 

I want to write about everyone – but not now. For now, Thank you my teachers …

*************************************************************

What to say of millions of our children 

who have no opportunity 

to meet a teacher yet?

Being Unmarried ...

I came in contact with a ‘Greek Catholic’ from Romania three years back. Although we have not been meeting often, we did exchange views and opinions on some interesting issues of the Church, when we met. He was married and has a son. He is a jolly good fellow. 

I enjoy chatting with him although I do not understand many things, because he speaks fast and I do not understand much a foreign language when people speak fast. People tell me that I speak very fast and they do not understand. But in many places I see that others speak faster than me and I do not understand. 

This is an irony of life. We become the victim of the same thing by which we victimize others.

He was sharing with us, there was another one this time, so that I can be sure that I understand him, about his difficulties in life. His wife wanted to leave him and the son, only to live with another one. The son wanted to move away from Italy and desired to live in his home land. He had to leave Italy to take care of his son.

I told you that he is a ‘Greek Catholic’. I did not tell you that he is a priest. He has decided to live alone with his son. When we were listening to him, I do not know what he thought, he patted my cheek and said:  ‘I am happy that you are not married’.

Does this mean ... No more Discussion ...