ΰ Fountainhead

Nobody can really own an invention or a discovery or even an idea. My opinion. That finding was supposed or rather waiting to be come into existence. We (as in humans) just took time to come across the finding. And most of the time one doesn’t go out to invent or discover anything … its just chance that one stumbles across while trying to find something else! The inventor/discoverer/innovator is just credited for his/her effort.

Everything, I feel, is and was already there in the Universe. The universe I consider is the Superset; the sum total of everything. And humans are a piece of this universe. This may be the reason that some mystics say all the answers one need is in one-self.

“Seek and ye shall find” ....what you look for if not yet found. Or more even.

The universe being the ONE and only all-inclusive entity; all answers, ideas, patterns and structures already exist within. No invention/discovery/idea is therefore in my view original to anybody.

Having said all that I would have to add all hats are off to the inventors for their inventions; discoverers for their enterprise and discoveries; and smart people for their ideas. They have made our lives easier. I keep reminding my friends what an amazing invention the braking system of the car seat belt is, same with the ubiquitous Nut and the Bolt, or something even simpler as the Safety Pin!

C♂ncept of C♀nsorts

Thank you Dan Brown for sweeping the path for me :-)

There exist many entities in this big universal soup. But most of these entities exist as the complements. There can be in the 1-to-1 association; 1-to-many and sometimes even many-to-many. The tendency of each of the complements is to search, reach and assist in the completion of the whole. Until then there is yearning and incompleteness.

 The Siva-Shakti form fascinates me. The familiar Ardhanareshwara form is a good (visual) representation of this Siva-Shakti union. It is the form that shows one half as Shiva, the male principle, and other half as Parvati, the female principle. Each half in the divided states supports, inspires, tickles, irritates, complements and supplements the other in a sort of playfulness. The union brings the bliss and stillness in a sort of everlasting orgasm. In Hinduism, the concept is easily acceptable by any common man because of the way Hinduism loads and codes the answers to the riddles of universe with deities, symbolism and myths.

 

In Hinduism most (if not all) of gods in the pantheon have one or more (1-to-many) ‘consorts’ (Note: They were not wives but 'consorts'. Marriages are for the society and unnatural :-) ) In the polytheistic pantheon gods-goddesses combinations existed across cultures like with the Egyptians (Isis-Osiris), Greek (Adonis-Aphrodite) and more. The many-to-many structures seems to be prevalent in some old rare uncategorized societies like tribes, new-age pagan revivals etc

Completion is the way forward.

Comrade Jesus

Jesus was a revolutionary, and one of the prominent such icons in history. But that’s only the secondary reason why I like him.

It was such revolutionaries that brought about the much-needed change whenever entropy tightened its grip on societies. It would have been very different world today if there weren't any Karl Marx, Martin Luther, Che Guevara, Gandhi, Mandela, Malcolm X and such. The world would have had more difficult and slower progression without them.

Changes, through revolutionaries, war or catastrophes, happen at appropriate points of time in history. The situation forces it. Reason is that nobody likes or wants change. Prevailing social/religious norms and laws provide security for sometime but not for long. They gather static and slowly but surely become redundant. These frameworks will be so restrictive that it calls for shelving/ amendment/ or revamp. Revolutionaries, philosophers and such thinkers may be the Design's (God?) way of shampooing and then conditioning such institutions (society or even whole cultures) and thus bring about the much-needed 'upgrade'.

Anyway back to my topic. Undoubtedly the first reason why I adore Jesus is because he epitomized LOVE. No, even beyond love; it’s about compassion. Another God-figure I consider quite similar to Jesus in the compassion front is Krishna. Krishna probably was the lord-allocation for that geographical area called India as Jesus was to Judea :-)

Consider these facts justifying my second reason:

• He dared to modify the commandments. NOBODY (Israelite at least) dares to change the centuries old law or tradition. Would we dare to even try such a thing in this age enlightenment and freedom?
• The fact is that he blasphemed! Blasphemy, especially within a monotheistic religion, is the Papa-Sin and the crime is punishable by stoning. So wasn't he radical or what?
• He ridiculed the ecclesiastics publicly. That’s a death wish within any community.
• He, consciously or unconsciously, was the reason for a new faction within Jews and almost stirred up an uprising. It projected him as a coup leader.
• I do believe he had a soft corner (that much at least) to Mary Magdalene. Even if not, he dared to associate with outcasts - lepers and prostitutes. That’s really bold of him. In all probability his relatives must have ostracized him. 
• He had a natural inclination to break most social rules.

Now why would somebody do all this? Because he was a FREE man, loved his freedom, was fearless and was absolutely focused on his karma to free others too.

Jesus (my personal Jesus) was a free man. He had he guts to live and speak the way he wanted. He spoke freely and acted the way he wanted. He had a definite goal/message oriented life; inspired the masses; gave his unbiased free love to all who asked; and had the courage to change whatever he deemed necessary. Finally he died in style...as a martyr to a cause.

Salute to one of the greatest socialist that walked the earth!