AGRIM YOGA: Desires & Swan
Desires are the spice of life and e...: Desires & Swan Desires are the spice of life and eternal. It's necessary to have desires to add flavour and aroma in life, but in ...
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
Tuesday, June 19, 2018
Response to an ex-BJP insider's narrative
Someone sent me this article as a WhatsApp forward:
https://scroll.in/article/882970/why-i-am-resigning-from-the-bjp-a-narendra-modi-supporter-and-party-campaign-analyst-explains
The person who had sent me this is the sort of nationalist who is unlikely to vote 'NOTA' in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, and yet probably believes that neutrality as a format of discussion is important in order to arrive at a fair assessment of political reality. It is important for readers to first read the above article in order to understand my response to it, in the following.
I decided to give a considered and systematic response, partly in order to influence public opinion on this issue to the extent possible. I have always maintained that engagement with the general public is inherently pointless, and extremely taxing and thankless even when better than pointless, and yet sometimes it is difficult to let go without responding meaningfully to something that seems so obviously misleading to people that pride themselves on their considered attitude of fairness and neutrality, for whatever such attitude may be worth in terms of actually making a fair assessment of political reality.
There are several points that I wish to make regarding this chap's narrative because it is important to analyse the circumstances holistically, instead of assigning credibility to some person's narrative simply because he was a BJP insider at some point in time.
1. One has to understand something in the wider geopolitical narrative that not even BJP's campaign team is able to state publicly, and not all of them are likely aware of, as evidenced by this former campaign analyst's obvious ignorance in this matter. I'm referring here to the elite globalists, the collective of wealthiest business families in the world, that owned the East India Company and controls the British crown through majority ownership of Bank of England sovereign bonds, since 1812. They are the owners of the sort of businesses that operate through the dark web - drugs, terrorism funding, money laundering, contract killers for hire, human trafficking, several other unmentionables - the whole nine yards. So the transfer of power from the company to the crown in 1857 was actually a sham transfer of power. Similarly, the transfer of power from the crown to Nehru in India under a false pretext of democracy, and to Jinnah in Pakistan without such pretext, were also sham transfers of power. That is my real reason for being against the Congress, and also the reason that the Congress is able to successfully rally all non-BJP parties behind it - the elite globalists had already set up a deep state within the political-administrative structure of the country well before 1947, the Congress inherited the deep state from them, and so it was obviously expected that the Congress had to remain a puppet of the elite globalists forever. PMs like Lal Bahadur Shastri and P V Narasimha Rao within the Congress who were conscientious enough to not toe the line were removed either physically or politically. Sonia Gandhi was planted by these globalists as early as the 1970's so that they had someone at the top who was not only an administrative puppet of the Indian deep state, who might prove inconvenient at times (Indira Gandhi being such an instance), but also uneducated and stupid enough to do their bidding without question.
2. It has been the pattern of the elite globalists, not only in India, but also in the largest democracies (in economic terms) under their control, such as the US and UK, to buy over the mainstream media, because the power that controls the media, the fourth estate in a democracy, effectively controls the democracy itself. In that sense, BJP discrediting most of the mainstream media narrative is something that the media had earned for itself, and was long overdue. One might argue that BJP did it because the media was against them, but if the media is basically owned/controlled by imperialist powers, I think discrediting them is not only moral but politically and geostrategically appropriate. It isn't clear why the author has an issue with morals in the case of the present government when this issue of morality is far bigger than most others that he deems important. When you are faced with a powerful, ponderous enemy like mainstream media owned/controlled by foreign imperialist powers, I don't see the harm in responding with an Internet-based fake news strategy, if it proves to be a deadly response. The enemy is anyway so big and powerful that playing straight on every battlefront would be ineffective. Moreover, if one analyses these strategies in terms of statecraft instead of simplistic middle-class morality, it wouldn't appear to be that big an issue. Statecraft isn't meant for those whose sense of morality extends only to the obvious, like the author of the article cited above, and who ignore the insidious and the invisible either because they cannot fathom it, or because don't have the intellectual capacity to make sense of it. They are unable to understand a deceptively simple principle that the difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense, especially to the masses.
3. हिन्दू ख़तरे में हैं is not a fake narrative, as the emerging situation in Kerala and West Bengal is a testimony to. The manner in which Islamic expansionism expresses itself when the Muslims reach a demographic majority in any region or country establishes it as a clear and present danger to Hindus in India, and in fact to non-Muslims all over the world. Dr Subramanian Swamy has elaborated on this issue in at least one of his public speeches. And to add to all of this, the UN controlled by the elite globalists and represented by Priyanka Chopra wishes for India to take in cannibals like the Rohingya Muslims as refugees so that Islamic expansionism receives a significant boost within the country. It is clearly seen that if Islamic expansionism is not checked effectively, by 2040 India would become a Muslim-majority country, and normal people like us would be forced to live under the Shariah law with basically few to none of the fundamental rights that we enjoy at present. Just because this author isn't able to see the geometric progression in Muslim population in the country at present, because he obviously doesn't understand simple high-school mathematics, his assessment that there is nothing on the ground to suggest that हिन्दू ख़तरे में हैं, is not something that is worth taking seriously, at least by those with some logical persuasion.
4. The green revolution that the Congress had brought about was pushed through mainly by the promotion of mainstream industries owned or controlled by the elite globalists - chemical fertilisers and pesticides. The long-term ecological harm caused by these substances was probably meant for the agricultural enslavement of the country to foreign imperialist powers because they would obviously know that dropping soil yields caused by the widespread and long-term usage of chemicals would ensure this outcome. We are witness to farmer suicides that are quite common nowadays. Is it not likely that crop yields dropping over time have at least something to do with this issue? The green revolution propagated by successive Congress governments was in all likelihood a Trojan horse brought in by them on behalf of the elite globalists in order to ensure continued economic exploitation in a manner similar to pre-1947 colonialism. He cites agrarian self-sufficiency and even over-sufficiency as a consequence of this green revolution, but very conveniently fails to mention (intentionally, or more likely due to ignorance) that this self-sufficiency is a time bomb on which we're sitting at present unless the Modi administration does something to shift the agrarian economy entirely over to biofertiliser and biopesticide-based organic farming.
5. The polarisation that he talks about is not only very real but also quite necessary. This necessity appears to be beyond the ability of a seeming simpleton like the author to fathom, but I would like to elaborate on it to the extent that I can. When a nation has to fight a battle for survival on cultural and economic battlefronts, it needs to identify friends and enemies very clearly, and not being aligned on either side because one prefers convenience, mental laziness and lack of stress etc. isn't really an ethical way of dealing with the situation. There are many such non-aligned people in society nowadays, a proud yet cowardly subset being the NOTA-voting impractical idealists, and I do not even care to engage with them in conversation or otherwise, because their apathy and political ignorance (when in spite of education) makes them unfit to interact with anyone with a more responsible attitude towards the nation and civilisation. Balaram had decided to go on a pilgrimage during the Mahabharat war because he had his favourite disciples, Duryodhan and Bheem pitted against each other, on either side. When Balaram came to the battlefield with his "righteous" anger et al, to prevent Bheem from killing Duryodhan in an obviously unethical manner, Krishna had pointed out this exact thing to him - that he had lost his moral high ground to interfere already, by choosing neutrality when it wasn't really a fair option. Two things emerge from this situation: Firstly, (a) the need for polarisation against adharma has always been there in human society, and so is equally important in the present times since any kind of unilateral imperialist agenda is adharma in practice. When Krishna had polarised the forces of dharma onto the side of the Pandavas, it is unrealistic to imagine that all the kings and their armies on the side of the Pandavas were entirely honest and consistently straightforward in all their thoughts, actions and behaviour. It is equally unrealistic to imagine that all the forces of adharma on the side of the Kauravas were entirely dishonest in their persuasion, and twisted in the intentions informing their actions - in fact, there were people like Karna, Bhishma and Dronacharya in whose case this wasn't even clearly established as their mainstream narrative, though it turned out to be the eventual consequence of their unfortunate thought process. Secondly, (b) countering unfair mainstream media tactics by equally unfair media tactics like fake news and ownership of news channels to push forth with your narrative in the mainstream public stage, encouraging polarisation as the mainstream public narrative, retaliating with tenfold aggression against military aggression of nations controlled by the elite globalists (like the Pakistani political administrative machinery controlled by the US deep state, etc.), et al, are entirely fair and just stratagem in the abstract, unemotional and clinical realm of statecraft, that most middle-class people find inconvenient to think about, hence care even less to understand.
https://scroll.in/article/882970/why-i-am-resigning-from-the-bjp-a-narendra-modi-supporter-and-party-campaign-analyst-explains
The person who had sent me this is the sort of nationalist who is unlikely to vote 'NOTA' in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, and yet probably believes that neutrality as a format of discussion is important in order to arrive at a fair assessment of political reality. It is important for readers to first read the above article in order to understand my response to it, in the following.
I decided to give a considered and systematic response, partly in order to influence public opinion on this issue to the extent possible. I have always maintained that engagement with the general public is inherently pointless, and extremely taxing and thankless even when better than pointless, and yet sometimes it is difficult to let go without responding meaningfully to something that seems so obviously misleading to people that pride themselves on their considered attitude of fairness and neutrality, for whatever such attitude may be worth in terms of actually making a fair assessment of political reality.
There are several points that I wish to make regarding this chap's narrative because it is important to analyse the circumstances holistically, instead of assigning credibility to some person's narrative simply because he was a BJP insider at some point in time.
1. One has to understand something in the wider geopolitical narrative that not even BJP's campaign team is able to state publicly, and not all of them are likely aware of, as evidenced by this former campaign analyst's obvious ignorance in this matter. I'm referring here to the elite globalists, the collective of wealthiest business families in the world, that owned the East India Company and controls the British crown through majority ownership of Bank of England sovereign bonds, since 1812. They are the owners of the sort of businesses that operate through the dark web - drugs, terrorism funding, money laundering, contract killers for hire, human trafficking, several other unmentionables - the whole nine yards. So the transfer of power from the company to the crown in 1857 was actually a sham transfer of power. Similarly, the transfer of power from the crown to Nehru in India under a false pretext of democracy, and to Jinnah in Pakistan without such pretext, were also sham transfers of power. That is my real reason for being against the Congress, and also the reason that the Congress is able to successfully rally all non-BJP parties behind it - the elite globalists had already set up a deep state within the political-administrative structure of the country well before 1947, the Congress inherited the deep state from them, and so it was obviously expected that the Congress had to remain a puppet of the elite globalists forever. PMs like Lal Bahadur Shastri and P V Narasimha Rao within the Congress who were conscientious enough to not toe the line were removed either physically or politically. Sonia Gandhi was planted by these globalists as early as the 1970's so that they had someone at the top who was not only an administrative puppet of the Indian deep state, who might prove inconvenient at times (Indira Gandhi being such an instance), but also uneducated and stupid enough to do their bidding without question.
2. It has been the pattern of the elite globalists, not only in India, but also in the largest democracies (in economic terms) under their control, such as the US and UK, to buy over the mainstream media, because the power that controls the media, the fourth estate in a democracy, effectively controls the democracy itself. In that sense, BJP discrediting most of the mainstream media narrative is something that the media had earned for itself, and was long overdue. One might argue that BJP did it because the media was against them, but if the media is basically owned/controlled by imperialist powers, I think discrediting them is not only moral but politically and geostrategically appropriate. It isn't clear why the author has an issue with morals in the case of the present government when this issue of morality is far bigger than most others that he deems important. When you are faced with a powerful, ponderous enemy like mainstream media owned/controlled by foreign imperialist powers, I don't see the harm in responding with an Internet-based fake news strategy, if it proves to be a deadly response. The enemy is anyway so big and powerful that playing straight on every battlefront would be ineffective. Moreover, if one analyses these strategies in terms of statecraft instead of simplistic middle-class morality, it wouldn't appear to be that big an issue. Statecraft isn't meant for those whose sense of morality extends only to the obvious, like the author of the article cited above, and who ignore the insidious and the invisible either because they cannot fathom it, or because don't have the intellectual capacity to make sense of it. They are unable to understand a deceptively simple principle that the difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense, especially to the masses.
3. हिन्दू ख़तरे में हैं is not a fake narrative, as the emerging situation in Kerala and West Bengal is a testimony to. The manner in which Islamic expansionism expresses itself when the Muslims reach a demographic majority in any region or country establishes it as a clear and present danger to Hindus in India, and in fact to non-Muslims all over the world. Dr Subramanian Swamy has elaborated on this issue in at least one of his public speeches. And to add to all of this, the UN controlled by the elite globalists and represented by Priyanka Chopra wishes for India to take in cannibals like the Rohingya Muslims as refugees so that Islamic expansionism receives a significant boost within the country. It is clearly seen that if Islamic expansionism is not checked effectively, by 2040 India would become a Muslim-majority country, and normal people like us would be forced to live under the Shariah law with basically few to none of the fundamental rights that we enjoy at present. Just because this author isn't able to see the geometric progression in Muslim population in the country at present, because he obviously doesn't understand simple high-school mathematics, his assessment that there is nothing on the ground to suggest that हिन्दू ख़तरे में हैं, is not something that is worth taking seriously, at least by those with some logical persuasion.
4. The green revolution that the Congress had brought about was pushed through mainly by the promotion of mainstream industries owned or controlled by the elite globalists - chemical fertilisers and pesticides. The long-term ecological harm caused by these substances was probably meant for the agricultural enslavement of the country to foreign imperialist powers because they would obviously know that dropping soil yields caused by the widespread and long-term usage of chemicals would ensure this outcome. We are witness to farmer suicides that are quite common nowadays. Is it not likely that crop yields dropping over time have at least something to do with this issue? The green revolution propagated by successive Congress governments was in all likelihood a Trojan horse brought in by them on behalf of the elite globalists in order to ensure continued economic exploitation in a manner similar to pre-1947 colonialism. He cites agrarian self-sufficiency and even over-sufficiency as a consequence of this green revolution, but very conveniently fails to mention (intentionally, or more likely due to ignorance) that this self-sufficiency is a time bomb on which we're sitting at present unless the Modi administration does something to shift the agrarian economy entirely over to biofertiliser and biopesticide-based organic farming.
5. The polarisation that he talks about is not only very real but also quite necessary. This necessity appears to be beyond the ability of a seeming simpleton like the author to fathom, but I would like to elaborate on it to the extent that I can. When a nation has to fight a battle for survival on cultural and economic battlefronts, it needs to identify friends and enemies very clearly, and not being aligned on either side because one prefers convenience, mental laziness and lack of stress etc. isn't really an ethical way of dealing with the situation. There are many such non-aligned people in society nowadays, a proud yet cowardly subset being the NOTA-voting impractical idealists, and I do not even care to engage with them in conversation or otherwise, because their apathy and political ignorance (when in spite of education) makes them unfit to interact with anyone with a more responsible attitude towards the nation and civilisation. Balaram had decided to go on a pilgrimage during the Mahabharat war because he had his favourite disciples, Duryodhan and Bheem pitted against each other, on either side. When Balaram came to the battlefield with his "righteous" anger et al, to prevent Bheem from killing Duryodhan in an obviously unethical manner, Krishna had pointed out this exact thing to him - that he had lost his moral high ground to interfere already, by choosing neutrality when it wasn't really a fair option. Two things emerge from this situation: Firstly, (a) the need for polarisation against adharma has always been there in human society, and so is equally important in the present times since any kind of unilateral imperialist agenda is adharma in practice. When Krishna had polarised the forces of dharma onto the side of the Pandavas, it is unrealistic to imagine that all the kings and their armies on the side of the Pandavas were entirely honest and consistently straightforward in all their thoughts, actions and behaviour. It is equally unrealistic to imagine that all the forces of adharma on the side of the Kauravas were entirely dishonest in their persuasion, and twisted in the intentions informing their actions - in fact, there were people like Karna, Bhishma and Dronacharya in whose case this wasn't even clearly established as their mainstream narrative, though it turned out to be the eventual consequence of their unfortunate thought process. Secondly, (b) countering unfair mainstream media tactics by equally unfair media tactics like fake news and ownership of news channels to push forth with your narrative in the mainstream public stage, encouraging polarisation as the mainstream public narrative, retaliating with tenfold aggression against military aggression of nations controlled by the elite globalists (like the Pakistani political administrative machinery controlled by the US deep state, etc.), et al, are entirely fair and just stratagem in the abstract, unemotional and clinical realm of statecraft, that most middle-class people find inconvenient to think about, hence care even less to understand.
Thursday, April 19, 2018
Why mainstream social consciousness is a strategic liability for nationalists
Moral ineptitude results from lack of intellectual clarity and its correlated inability to self-reflect. Both of these result out of an excessively outward dissipation, which in turn is caused by excessive adherence to social perceptions and mainstream social realities. So when most humans are conformists by persuasion, excessive adherence to social perceptions and mainstream social realities is but an obvious implication for this pervasive subset. It thus follows that most people are internally weakened by the resultant moral ineptitude, and end up becoming bullies/cowards, or lacking the ability and motivation to stand up for what is obviously right.
Such people define mainstream social consciousness, and although they are victims of the elite globalists, they lack the moral and intellectual apparatus to recognise the true scope of their victimhood. Hence, they can never become allies to forces that intend to act effectively against anti-national elements, and will instead oppose meaningful nationalism through diverse cultural and intellectual tools created for them by the insidious elite globalists.
You can't harm them because you're not maliciously motivated like the elite globalists, you cannot depend on them as allies because they are weak and morally inept, and yet they will do everything within their structurally compromised intellectual scope to defeat your nationalistic persuasion, without even being aware of what they're actually trying to do. Since mainstream social consciousness is defined by this subset of humans, it is essentially a strategic liability for people of nationalistic motivation, provided they wish to actually do something about such motivation.
Such people define mainstream social consciousness, and although they are victims of the elite globalists, they lack the moral and intellectual apparatus to recognise the true scope of their victimhood. Hence, they can never become allies to forces that intend to act effectively against anti-national elements, and will instead oppose meaningful nationalism through diverse cultural and intellectual tools created for them by the insidious elite globalists.
You can't harm them because you're not maliciously motivated like the elite globalists, you cannot depend on them as allies because they are weak and morally inept, and yet they will do everything within their structurally compromised intellectual scope to defeat your nationalistic persuasion, without even being aware of what they're actually trying to do. Since mainstream social consciousness is defined by this subset of humans, it is essentially a strategic liability for people of nationalistic motivation, provided they wish to actually do something about such motivation.
Sunday, June 12, 2016
WHY THE POLICE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN INDIA WILL FAIL TO TACKLE SUBTLE FORMS OF WARFARE AGAINST THE STATE
While on the one hand the Indian
state has a clearly understood and recognised objective of defeating warfare
against it, whether externally or internally, insofar as the non-military
aspects of this war are concerned, the current structure of the police and criminal
justice systems in India appears inadequate to meaningfully address the state of
war in which the nation currently purportedly exists.
For one, there are pros and cons
to being a terrorist/criminal organisation vs. a police one. In both kinds of
organisations, there is a difference between the ramifications of individual objectives
vs. collective objectives.
The following are disadvantages
in terms of individual objectives in a terrorist/criminal organisation:
- One is much more dispensable to the organisation than in other kinds of middle class jobs, or in police/military organisations
- One usually has a very poor life expectancy (for a Jihadist it may be as less as two years)
- One may lose all contact with family for long periods of time or even permanently
- Even though one is dispensable to the organisation, this is not as in-your-face as on the dark side – also, there is pension, bereavement compensation etc. for the family in case one dies
- One has a certain social esteem and acceptability, for the most part (not talking about Neanderthals like Kanhaiya Kumar who still take socialism as an economic doctrine seriously), and in some cases even power for those whose intellects find the concept real.
- Among friends and society members who understand the nature of the work and its constraints, there is a genuine appreciation for one’s contribution to the larger picture of society, and most importantly, social and economic order – this is a sort of appreciation that goes beyond social esteem and acceptability vide point 2 above.
The need to stress the difference
between points 2 and 3 above arises from the fact that most of the middle class
understands justice in a somewhat limited form of right vs. wrong and similar
simple concepts, and the evolution from there takes one to understand that any
meaningful manifestation of justice has social and economic order as its
starting point. The author counts himself as applicable to point 3.
However, if one were to look at
collective objectives, the picture becomes much more unsavoury, at least in
India. I cover collective objectives for both types of organisations together
in the following:
- The police systems are structurally consistent with the British Raj, in which the state and central police organisations had a primary role of maintaining a colony and serving their masters – the structures have been designed for officers to follow orders leading down from the Viceroy of India. Lack of imagination comes with the territory.
- Terrorist and criminal organisations do not lack governance through imaginative and exceedingly intelligent brains, nor subtlety. Police organisations often assume that terrorist organisations, in particular, act on behalf of a state or merely out of economic and/or religious interests. The bureaucratic structure of police organisations prevents them from seeing anything that does not come with physical evidence.
- When the terrorist/criminal organisations in question truly believe that their provenance of instructions/commands ends earlier than it actually does, it appears exceedingly unlikely that any sort of evidence making the connection will appear. When something doesn’t exist (as far as one can tell), it is impossible to either hide it or show it, right?
- While it is largely true that the intellects of members of criminal/terrorist organisations would be dull and unimaginative, the police systems are forced to replicate the unimaginative part for as facile a reason as it being a British legacy. It is no wonder then that the most subtle murders in India happen with not even a hint at meaningful investigation, a case in point being the systematic elimination of Indian nuclear scientists.
- Just because terrorist organisations consist largely of people of dull and unimaginative intellects, it doesn’t mean that they cannot be manipulated, especially by international cabals that have human resources endowed with exceedingly high IQs + the subtlety, sophistication and imagination that come with this IQ, unshackled by basic stupidities like British legacy that pretend to be reasons that the educated middle class in India is supposed to find acceptable. Add to it, neither are these cabals lacking in financial resources, nor are they constrained to not work with anybody willing and capable of working for them because of some silly and contrived reasons that any student of economics would clearly see as not simply fallacious and dangerous, but negatively disruptive to the social fabric, in addition.
To summarise, it is the absence
of rules that makes terrorist organisations and the likely cabals fronted by
Western intelligence agencies so dangerous for Indian police organisations to
tackle. While interrogating captured terrorists and myriad other types of
criminals and spies is groundwork that police duties must necessarily involve,
we seem to be completely missing the larger picture at work here.
We are most likely in a state of
war against the state, and yet we know that the enemy is necessarily human. Their
insidiousness appears dangerous because the police collective in the country is
too engaged with its bureaucratic somnolence to imagine that they exist. It
would appear less dangerous if we remember that it was our land that produced Chanakya, and are thus less
pusillanimous in acknowledging the existence of what is merely the highest
level in the geopolitical game.
A suspension of disbelief is
sometimes necessary if only due to the realisation that, when we think about
it, we do not lead our daily lives on the basis of our beliefs or disbeliefs. A
higher rationality, or wisdom, if one may call it that, is not necessarily as
confined to the intellect as one’s “beliefs” may lead one to think.
Three outcomes seem probable in this scenario:
- The extent of damage has gone far overboard before the existence of a collective of international intelligence agencies is even acknowledged, after which we go back to being a colony of a collectivist state, financially or even politically.
- Macroeconomic changes occur in the global economy that outweigh the consequences of the somnolent lack of imagination of the Indian police collective.
- Actors emerge on the stage that act meaningfully and yet entirely independently of the Indian state, and the state actors are not worse off for not knowing what could’ve hurt them and the state, but didn’t.
Only time will tell which scenario will play out
in the future.
Monday, March 3, 2008
The purpose of existence
What do you think is the purpose of living? Is it to enjoy, make merry and be happy? Is it to lead a life of contentment? Is it wealth? Or is it something in addition to these things? Do you believe that your consciousness is eternal? If so, how would you like to see it continue?
Of course, I acknowledge that wealth and emotional happiness are important for living a good life, which in turn makes one more likely to be in tune with his/her natural self. However, are these ends in themselves, or are they the means to an end? The Hindu scriptures define one's legitimate and worthy aims in life as Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha. Do you agree with this definition? Do you agree with it partially? Where do you agree and where do you disagree? Is there something that can be added to this list? One's pleasure-seeking and need for emotional happiness may find expression in music, or mathematics, or dance, or work, and that may in turn lead him/her towards Moksha. Non-attachment is only possible by strong attachment to a single purpose, according to the Bhagavad Gita. Do you think non-attachment is an aim worthy of attainment? If so, why?
Of course, I acknowledge that wealth and emotional happiness are important for living a good life, which in turn makes one more likely to be in tune with his/her natural self. However, are these ends in themselves, or are they the means to an end? The Hindu scriptures define one's legitimate and worthy aims in life as Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha. Do you agree with this definition? Do you agree with it partially? Where do you agree and where do you disagree? Is there something that can be added to this list? One's pleasure-seeking and need for emotional happiness may find expression in music, or mathematics, or dance, or work, and that may in turn lead him/her towards Moksha. Non-attachment is only possible by strong attachment to a single purpose, according to the Bhagavad Gita. Do you think non-attachment is an aim worthy of attainment? If so, why?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
