Verruckt

Yesterday while studying i suddenly got this doubt (only when i am studying can i get these sorts of doubts).

All great saints and the bhagavad gita and the bible and the kuran and every holy book says that we should reach a stage where there is no attachment no sorrows no joy no pain no anything.

A person who reaches this stage has a striking resemblance to another person (whose number count is increasing day by day) i.e a person who is mad.

So are all holy writs asking us to become mad (verruckt)


(This is actually for fun there is one another explanation which i will write after my exams get over)

Ein versuch to justify

i am actually writing this blog in response to murari's statement that you cannot say that "I have a problem" because you can only have(posses) a object, and ya it sounds right

But after some thinking (I have exams day after tomorrow and i am thinking about the justification of using HAVE ) i hit upon a "may be" reason for saying i have a problem.

When you say i have a problem you actually mean that you are possesed by a problem or a problem has you because as murari said a problem is not an object and you cannot have a prblem (am planning to write a blog about objectivity of problems as soon as my exam gets over)

But man as a creature has always been steeped in self importance and so when saying anything "I" becomes all important.

A problem possesses me

I have a problem

Both the sentences convey the same meaning but in the first sentence the importance is on the problem the emphasis is on the word problem the all important place is occupied by the word problem and the information of who has the problem comes second .

The second sentences begins with I and in the beginning itself man asserts his self importance the words " I HAVE" become important, zuerst the information that i have something is conveyed and then comes the word problem and it occupies a poor secondary position a lesser important one.

You can also say " I am possessed by a problem" but here again you are saying you are under the control of something (here a problem) which no person likes . here also problem becomes more important than I.

So i think we came to saying I HAVE A PROBLEM. This is only what i feel and i may not be correct.

Environ-MENTALISTS

This is my first blog and what a time to write it.Exams on 23rd and 30th and preparation not even up to my worst enemies expectation.but i have confidence that luck and god wont leave me down this time(past two levels cleared- and due credit to luck and ofcourse the almighty)

ok enough of my own sad story.Lets get down to business (as they say in movies).The matter on which i am going to discuss about is, Are environmentalists a boon or bane to the industrial society in the present decade (2000 - 2010)?

To begin with let me start by saying what i think, yes at present environmentalists are turning out to be a bane to the industrial world.of late too many new environmentalists groups have sprung up these are financed by individuals who are extremely wealthy and have no idea of how the industries affect the environment (except ofcourse the bookish knowledge from school books).

These groups start to bung in spanners in to every industrial action like opening a factory even when it has the necessary clearances.When the objection is warranted and is based on a solid reason then it is ok but most of the times objections are raised on vague grounds thereby dampening the industrial growth to a considerable level.

A fact which proves that a lot of the environmentalist groups are redundant is the current level of pollution.with the growth in the number of groups the pollution level in the world should be almost nil.

What a lot of groups do is that they focus only on the production side and not on the consumer side i.e they keep saying a particular factory to stop producing but do not take any action to curb the usage of the goods produced by the particular factory.

Another basic thing is that there is no point in the society always playing the heroes part.I would say the societies part in curbing pollution is more than the industries.When people here are not prepared to keep the sorroundings clean (inspite of the govt trying to remind the people by putting hoardings in even the most important places) the so called env.groups should first concentrate on the individuals and try to create awareness.

Answer to this question honestly : am i prepared to go to college or work in cycle or thru bus so as to minimise pollution? when the answer is yes you are allowed to point a finger at the industries.

In america things have gone to such an extent that a group of individuals come together start a env.group and then CREATE info about over pollution and other bad stuff collect money for a noble cause and black mail an particular factory that they will file a suit against them and getting money from them and vanish (this is from an article i read). When you want to make a lot of quick money this seems to be good idea ( i am interested persons who wish to form a syndicate may contact me)

I am not against all the env.groups some do lot of good work and there should always be check to everything.But in todays world i think env. protection has become nothing more than a fad and a means of quick money