Sliding on the Dawkins scale

The Dawkins scale is a scale that measures belief (I think it was deliberately constructed to closely resemble the Kinsey scale of human sexuality). It's a scale from 1 to 7, 1 being certitude that God exist and 7 being certitude that God doesn't exist. This post is about how I slid steadily down on this scale and where I am today.

Where did I start out? I probably started out vaguely aware that people believed in a god that watched over them. That kind of belief was something that happened to other people. As a little kid, I also didn't know anything about Platonic dualism. I used to think that "mind" and "brain" meant the same thing. I was "corrected" by my well-meaning grandfather. He said "... the brain is separate from the mind. The mind exists beyond the brain...". That sounded somehow so lofty and nice, though I argued against it just because I felt I should. I was probably in the 2nd grade.

Unfortunately, like a lot of kids, I was afraid of the dark. My mom suggested I pray to god(she specifically suggested Rama) and that this would make things okay. I think that worked- my fear of the dark was substantially reduced. Around the 11th grade though, while that fear was thoroughly routed, the prayer still remained. It gave me the strength to sleep at night, the certainty that when I woke up, all would be as it was the night before. It was around this point that I started reading. Wikipedia was a lot less organized back then, more unstructured, but it was a treasure trove for me. Because I didn't bother about citations (so much for scientific training in school, eh?), the early form of Wikipedia was fine by me.

At this point though, more intellectually appealing alternatives began to creep in. Hindu monist beliefs drew me in(Advaita Vedanta), though not because of any inherent intrinsic logic in such a belief. It simply seemed nice and well-aligned with my world view- if you're basically good and lead a nice life, you'll be fine when you die because(here comes the fun part) the world is a lie, a mask or illusion(maya) over the "Ultimate Reality". It was also readily apparent to me that most old Eastern religions shared similar beliefs(The Tao, Buddhism, Jainism). It seemed to me that I had found a unifying theme between religions. Read carefully and selectively, one can also find monist overtones in the Qur'an, the Old Testament(some parts), and with some logical gymnastics, the New Testament. Eastern monism seemed to have made its way into the West as well- what you may know as New Age religions. I was sold! For the next few years, I strongly believed that this was the underlying truth of the world. How satisfying!

Then, I realized something. I seemed to have a need to believe- or worse, I seemed to believe out of sheer habit. Looking at my rosy little belief system through more critical eyes, it seemed to me that I had a symbiotic relationship with belief. I gave it my time of day and a space in my mind and it gave me solace. But solace from what? What exactly did I think was going to happen, as a student of science? The answer was clear: nothing! I saw only darkness beyond death. But I was no longer afraid of the dark, only sensibly cautious.

I read up on Evolution, on arguments for and against the existence of a prime mover, and on belief itself. It was at this point that I realized the trap of an all-encompassing faith- it morphs. Hinduism, since it started out as a way of life, morphs and adapts to encompass any belief system you have. It enfolds you. This is why Hindus do not evangelize- many of them sincerely believe that you might as well be a Hindu. To them, you are not the Other.

That's very nice. Generally then, liberal Hinduism is quite similar to liberal Judaism or some forms of Protestantism. That doesn't make it any more or less valid, does it? I had an answer now, but I was still in search of a question. I picked up "The God Delusion". This book has a polemical style that stings the religious. It stung even me, me-with-the-proclaimed-disbelief, with its harsh criticisms of religion. At that point, I asked myself: "why am I feeling bad if I no longer believe?". There were two answers: "I was taught to be overly polite when it comes to religion" and "I have the vestiges of some form of indoctrination clinging to me". My parents did not indoctrinate me, not consciously. But I was most certainly a product of that typical liberal Hindu environment- the tendency is towards inclusiveness and claiming oneness with other religions than to critique(not even other religions).

Richard Dawkins talks about consciousness-raising. That book raised my consciousness- not in some mystical sense, but more in letting me see what beliefs I had accrued along the way. At this stage, belief was no longer symbiotic to me- it was parasitic. I excised it. I stopped believing entirely. I lost superstition. I stopped crossing my fingers or uttering little prayers for what I wanted. I stopped knocking on wood (whoa, we seem to have accrued some uniquely Christian superstitions, no?).

Fueled by a desire to become a cleaner slate, I frequently attempted to shock myself by uttering statements that went against my former all-inclusive religious beliefs. Today, I can proudly say that if I am defending Hinduism, I am playing Devil's Advocate(whoa, we're on Judeo-Christian fire today!). I am fortunate to live with a guy who's an evolutionary biologist- he's always got an interesting thing or two to say everyday that continues to show Evolution by Natural Selection is very real. I am fortunate to have advisors who encourage my critical thinking skills- it turns out critical thinking during your PhD can actually apply outside that narrow little field of research you participate in! Shocking!

I am fortunate to have parents who aren't dismissive of my personal growth. I am utterly happy to have a fiancée who understands me and appreciates my attempts to become a clean slate. How is my desire to become a clean slate different from a similar albeit more mystic desire espoused by monists? I do not reject the power of thought, the power of the brain(and the mind, for science tells us they are the same thing viewed at different levels of abstraction). I try to wait for evidence before forming conclusions. In the absence of evidence, I try to make estimates for myself as to how probable or improbable something is. It is untenable(scientifically, philosophically) to postulate a prime mover that is infinitely complex to a Universe whose origins are unclear.

I slid from a 2 on the Dawkins scale to a 6 over the past 3 years. I think the existence of a god is highly improbable, but certainly do not make claims on the impossibility of such an existence. More importantly, I don't hang around waiting for evidence one way or the other. If sound evidence to the contrary presents itself, I will simply change my mind. Till then, I will live my life free of pain and fear and worry. I will be cautious of death, cautious enough to live my life to the fullest.

After all, we face the dark everyday. Why should the last day be any different?

Institutionalized Hinduism

Clearly, this is a zombie post; my blog has been dead and is now resurrected, (un)fortunately, well before the end of days. Alright. Let's dive into it.

This is not going to be much of an argument from fact; I have chosen to not indulge in that pretense for this post. This will be an argument (a vague one) from assumptions that I'll attempt to state clearly. I'm also going to write this post in response to what "people say" - a random and ridiculous approach but I like to play around! So, what do "people say"?

"Hinduism isn't really a religion. It is a way of life that has had to evolve to be a religion- both to fit into the modern social discourse and to gain the same protections other religions have. In that case, if one were to aspire to be a true Hindu, it would be simply an attempt to discard such a religious interpretation of this way of life, and simply treat it as it was meant to be. It'll catch on better that way. Hinduism has been around for a really long time in that format, after all."

I think Hindus who make this statement are usually liberal Hindus from the Indian middle and upper economic classes.

They are also wrong. Hinduism has (and has had) at least a couple of religious institutions that formed a foundation for propagation of the religion. The first of these is the vast network of temples across the country that have frequently served as a cornerstone of family life, much like churches do in modern Christianity. You could point out that Hindus didn't have access to these temples during invasions and conquests by rulers practicing a different religion, but you'd only be partially correct. India has been mostly lucky in that the longest periods of conquest were generally by rulers with a secular, perhaps even a pluralistic bent (Mughal Emperor Akbar is the easiest example). In times when India had horrifically fundamentalist rulers (Mughal "Emperor" Aurangazeb springs to mind), there was opposition, underground worship and so forth. This worked because India wasn't India- it was a diffuse set of people used to getting their way, used to the nuttiness of kings and queens, and used to finding ways around that. I'd like to think the common man thought, "Hey, Aurangazeb may be a crazy king, but he is my ruler. Who am I to question him publicly? Instead, let me just do this pooja in privacy. He'll never know!".

Something changed when the British colonized India. Perhaps it was because their ways were so alien to us, perhaps it was because they viewed us as somehow inferior, not simply because of what religion we practiced, but by the colour of our skin, the lack of social cohesion and the lack of industrialization. This perhaps meant that they could justify not giving Indians the modicum of respect that Muslim rulers did give us. I'm not sure. Either way, when the British colonized India, our religious institutions changed. Hindus went to the temple but began to cling to their old ways of life well beyond the expiry date of those ways- I'm talking about the caste system. Suddenly, gods and temples were demoted and another already atrocious institution became the vehicle of Hinduism- the Caste System. I believe it is quite safe to say that the Caste System was the major thrust of Hinduism in the public social sphere (with the benefit of hindsight)- thrust here meaning the way Hinduism affected lives of people.

Then came the reform efforts- trying to remove the caste system and uplift the "lower Castes". It is indeed a work in progress and will take a while. Maybe someday, Hinduism will be sans the Caste system. But, if we continue with the train of thought that the Caste System has inadvertently become the central contribution of Hinduism, its only talking point and commentary on people's lives, removing the Caste System might remove Hinduism altogether! I've argued with my folks that if you're a religious person AND belief in exactly one god is a belief you wish to see enshrined in your religion, some forms of Christianity are the logical and most benign choices. On the other hand, if you don't believe in any god whatsoever (not even just the one!), you'd be an atheist or more mildly, an agnostic if you're unsure. Hinduism will be practiced by small segments of the population in the distant future, in this little portrait I've drawn- those drawn to the mystic/monist interpretations of Hinduism(drawn to the supposed freedom of these ideas), those drawn to the polytheist interpretation of Hinduism (the latter a more obvious interpretation than the former) and those stubbornly sticking to it despite the popularity and "rationality" of other religion (either to preserve the religion or simply because of indoctrination). A lot of categories but only a few people in each, after the other religions have had their say.

Hinduism will probably flourish if it is strongly institutionalized, with a caveat that we don't know that that would be such a good thing. Even today, one can see the craving of at least some Hindus for a centralized body, something to belong to other than temples and pooja rooms. This craving has manifested itself in the distorted and often plainly terrifying RSS, Bajrang Dal and the VHP, all overly-vocal Hindu organizations with close similarity to some bible-thumping neocons or fundamentalist Muslims(boredom, a desire for power, dangerous ignorance/intelligence).

Since Hinduism doesn't have a central voice other than these jokers, non-Hindus and Hindus alike will grow to regard them as the face and voice of Hinduism. This will prompt world scrutiny(not a bad thing), give further ammunition to conversion-hungry evangelists(I don't care) and probably cause many Hindus to leave their newly vitriolic religion or fall into those easy categories I listed above(the prospect doesn't pain me). Going with the same vague, unsubstantiated argument I've been making, I say that Hinduism requires an institution that is largely regarded as benign, like the one we have at Kanchi, but also far more involved in public debates and issues than the one at Kanchi. The guys at Kanchi have taken a step in this direction- their "spiritual leader" is starting a political party. I love it when the world goes along with my arguments in such a convenient fashion!

So, simply put, it might be logical to throw your weight behind this Hindu-politician-priest-party if you're horribly concerned about the future of Hinduism. They're more likely to care about what you(a probably socially liberal Hindu) have to say than the charming members of the RSS. The process of politicizing and transforming your ancient religion for the modern world and to make it fit for survival in a distant caste-free future can start here, today, with you!

That is, if you buy my argument. I'm not sure I do. But it was fun writing after so long!

Memystery...

We may arguably be in control of our own lives but we are not in control of Life. Understanding evolution teaches us this.

Currently, many scientists are of the view that we are merely vehicles of expression and competition for genes; not expression in the human sense, but in a "sprout limbs to help pass me on" sense. In a nutshell, everything we do, conscious and unconscious, may be the result of genes trying to propagate and continue on. Are you particularly robust or healthy? Thank your genes. Are you constantly ill? Blame your genes and the genes of viruses for good measure.

Hang on, though. Genes can't "try" to do anything- they're just chains of molecules, strands of DNA. Yet, somehow, for presumably billions of years, they have served as the sole vehicle of evolution, the sole competing media. Isn't it strange that these molecules influence so much of our behaviour, our lives, our culture?

Speaking of culture, some in the scientific community are of the view that there is now a second breed of competing media- the so called "memes". Memes are pure information- thoughts, ideas, poetry, generational slang, you name it. Scientists are divided over memes, but some espouse the fascinating view that memes compete and engender changes in us and our genes, just as our genes affect changes in us and may result in creation of new memes.

It's easy to visualize ourselves as liaison officers, facilitating interactions between genes and memes. At the "behest" of the competing media, we may end up evolving in strange directions- perhaps more durable vocal chords to enable the spoken memes, provided speaking has some intrinsic physiological or psychological value to humans as phenotypes (arguably, it is).

There's the concept of the extended phenotype. Here, genes of organisms that live within us (bacteria, viruses, that nasty fungal infection you didn't know about) may end up influencing the evolution of our bodies much like our own genes can! Ever felt less in control of your own fate?

Genes and memes are not alive. Everything that is not alive is, essentially, crude matter. Crude matter is a euphemism for trash and therefore everything that is not alive is trash. Thus, genes and memes are trash. We are trash ferriers, trash receptacles, mere pawns in a not-so-grand not-much-of-a-plan with no agent not planning anything.

How does that world view account for Terry Pratchett and Albert Einstein? For Vincent Van Gogh, Satyajit Ray and Alan Moore? What could possibly be the evolutionary "use" of Relativity, art or comic books to genes? They may indeed have become memes, but what is the phenotype that these memes effect changes in?

It's one big memystery. Paging Dr. Sherlock Freud...

Rising

Forget the economy and religion for a second. This is a blog post about something else altogether. First, let me start off by acknowledging something: I'm going to die. Today, tomorrow, ten years down the line, a fifty, a hundred, but I will die. With this acknowledgement of my mortality comes the question of how to live my life till that fateful day. I have decided to be happy, and to be myself.

Something very interesting has been happening. Few who knew me before college would call me passionate. Even now, the term "laid back" or "happy-go-lucky" is attributed to me. I will tell you this: you are wrong. I feel strongly about one thing, and this fact enables me to relax about everything else.

I feel strongly about myself.

I strongly affirm that I exist, and that my existence matters to me. My most powerful tool is my mind- note that this isn't a claim to any kind of superior intellect. It merely states that of the arsenal of weapons at my disposal (which does not include bazookas, sadly), my mind is the weapon of choice. For those claiming it is an illusion, those claiming that is a lie, an aberration that must be erased, I say to thee: nay! It exists. It arose out of natural biological processes and perhaps some random chance. The assumption that something this complex cannot arise from Nature is the ultimate conceit, bias or misconception, because that assumption comes from too much faith in human ability, and often a lack of understanding of natural processes.

When all we know and are is humanity, when our entire world view is defined by this, we fail to grasp the truly dynamic nature of, well, Nature. It makes us create or want to believe in a proto-human or super-human being, somebody at least somewhat personal and somebody we can hopefully meet and shake hands with, and more importantly, somebody in whose form we can believe we were made (though, ironically, in most of our thoughts, we give this being our form!).

I give myself one gift, in addition to that superb weapon; I give myself choice. A choice that is given is only a choice if one gave it to oneself. With my mind, I cut through the thorny thickets that my gift can often morph into. Then, in the ultimate positive feedback loop, I choose to believe in myself and my mind. This is positive self-reinforcement. The word positive, at least the way I use it, does not in any way refer to the consequences of this choice. Instead, it is a very simple word describing how I feel about myself and my choices.

I am not materialistic. I choose not to define myself by what others think of me, except when such a definition would lead to greater positive self-reinforcement, or even better, to growth. Growth, then, is what I have decided my future will contain. I also acknowledge that, in the end, my life amounts to very little. I will not have mattered to many people, or to the vast uncaring universe.

I will therefore make sure I always matter to me.

This one's for me: I am rising.

Musings- Part II

Ever have something happen to you which you got mad at in retrospect?

The last 10 years were quite interesting for me and my friends: we went to school, college and now we're either in grad school, interning or working someplace. I got thinking about things that happened, and a few gems stand out.

In 9th std (that's the 9th grade), we studied World History in great detail. Our teacher, Mr. Easwaran, was a favorite- he had a knack for keeping our attention. He had another trait that was obvious- he didn't like Hinduism. This by itself is no big deal. I was studying in St. John's English School and Junior College, an unabashedly nonsecular school. They would even hand out copies of the New Testament in class. This one time, we got a wonderful, full color comic book based on the life of Jesus of Nazareth. No, what this history teacher did was slightly more insidious- he wove the story of the Bible into our World History curriculum. Starting with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, he went on to explain the history of the world. He wove it all in so well, master story-teller that he was, throwing in appropriately neutral-sounding terminology whenever he thought literal interpretations of the Bibles would appall 9th grade kids. Through him, we were exposed to the rich narrative of the Semitic Religions. Being a convert himself, he had perhaps a little too much zeal and not enough neutrality, but he captivated our imaginations! Ah, the worlds he showed us!

Scumbag. He would brook no protest or discussion, cutting us off with "This is not a theology class". Hope you read this someday. Your attempts at indoctrination were transparent to most of us- we used to discuss them after class.

Don't get me wrong. I used to play the guitar in the choir daily, and on every Friday, join the boys' choir in singing praises to Christ. Somehow, in that seemingly nonsecular school, there was still a separation of Church and "state". That balance, of course, was changed by Mr. Easwaran. Suddenly, we had an authority figure teaching us the history of the world from the viewpoint of one religion. Even in an inherently Christian nation like the United States, a similar incident created such a furor. In multi-religious Hindu majority India, surprisingly, nobody heard about it. Not one person bothered. The same scene is being repeated in many Indian schools. Does it matter? Hinduism seems yet undecided on its stance on whether it is an organized religion or a way of life; whether it is an "it", in the sense of an ancient religion whose adherents are slowly being outnumbered in its last bastion, is still open to debate.

It should have been easy for the BJP to play the hard line Hinduism card. They were our version of the GOP, attempting to come into power again after a successful stint. I was an ardent supporter of their economic and foreign policies, though not of their right-wing religious stance. They didn't win, despite a good first term and a rising Hindu consciousness to prey on. That's the picture of the New Decade- the Indian GOP lost, at a time when the global recession caused right wingers to come to power all over the world. Of course, the term GOP is a misnomer- they are not as "grand" or as "old" a party as the Congress. In the New Decade, we are ruled by the most educated Prime Minister in the world, a brilliant man who kick-started India's economic growth and... wait, what's that you say? We aren't really ruled by Dr. Manmohan Singh? Sonia Gandhi, you say? Uhm, well... ha! At least we have an awesome President in Pratibha Patil, take that! Wait, what? She talks to the dead? Mired in financial scandals? Another Sonia Gandhi puppet?

Whoopsie. India in the New Decade, ladies and gentlemen!

Another charming incident from the past decade is the time when a teacher in my college said to me, "Don't ask questions in class. You're not supposed to. Even teachers don't know everything". Oh, and the other teacher who answered, "That's not in your syllabus- you don't need to know that. It won't come on the exam". They aren't to blame really. They were a part of a system of education that was in dire need of an overhaul. It was a system of education that was grounded in Victorian values of prudishness and "proper conduct", while completely disregarding the inquisitiveness and inventive spirit that spurred on the Industrial Revolution in the same culture that invented the Victorian values. The teachers in Indian colleges are dismally paid, and hence are barely interested, though there were a few exceptions. Is the pay changing in the New Decade? Maybe. Is the system of education changing? I have seen signs of change, promising ones, in various colleges and universities all over India. Unfortunately, there is one thing that will hold Indian universities back- the bureaucracy's utter lack of respect for the students (again, with some notable exceptions). As long as students feel their freedoms are curtailed, or that their voices are being disregarded, they will not be interested in learning. The best, who do learn and grow, will leave the system that they had to work against. Many may not come back. Most who do come back will not teach within that system.

I plan to return to India to teach, at the fag end of this New Decade. I hope the bureaucracy won't crush my spirit.

While religious attendance is at all time high, the New Decade is also seeing a rise in atheism. I was claimed by these godless creatures only a year ago, while I was perched on a fence that insisted it didn't exist. Ah, the contradictions in Hinduism! Get your story straight, people.

More next time on the economy and religion.

Musings on the second decade - Part 1

First, a very happy new year to everyone out there. We've gone around the sun once again! Also, this is the second decade of the new Millennium (which technically began in 1999). I thought I would write a series of blog posts (I don't know how many yet!) with my thoughts on the past, and how the legacy of the past will influence this new decade to come.

The first part of my story begins in the 1970s. What was special about the 1970s? Only Pink Floyd, Hendrix, the Beatles, hippies, the Cold War and... I digress! The thing I want to talk about right now is the Voyager probes, Voyager I and II. These probes were sent toward the outer solar system in 70s. They were to map the outer solar system, propelled by nuclear powered engines (with the help of a gravity-assist or two). Voyager II was on a longer and more curved trajectory, to keep it in the plane of the solar system.

Interesting things that came out of the Voyager missions: we found that the southern hemisphere of the solar system is being pushed in. Voyager 2 reached the heliosheath (the cloud of gas and dust that surrounds the system) well before Voyager 1 for this reason. We got some wonderful pictures of the outer planets. The Voyagers also contain the famed Golden Record, a record of mankind's culture and diversity on a golden phonograph. Also, they contain the brainwaves of Carl Sagan's wife! Let your imaginations roam here- mine does. In the far future, discovery of this "time capsule" may tell an alien of our curiosity, our diversity, our culture and Carl Sagan's wife's brainwaves...

However, there was something highly unfortunate about these missions: they were waaay before my time! I wasn't around to see it! I did get to see the launch of something equally interesting though: the New Horizons probe. This wonderful probe launched on January 19th, 2006. I watched the live feed from NASA's website (after watching the failed launch on the 11th). It's main mission is to study the outer solar system and Pluto, but New Horizons will give us more pictures of Jupiter and the Jovian moons than Pluto. By pictures, I mean the works- not just that puny band of the spectrum which we call "visible light"- particle readings, radio waves, light, orbital charts of the moons, you name it.

New Horizons will then go on to study Pluto and its moon, Charon. Pluto, which recently got demoted (arguably a wise move) from planet status. After this, New Horizons will go on to study the Kuiper belt, a large belt of asteroids and "plutoids", or near-Pluto size objects. It will leave the solar system in 2029 (estimated). However, perhaps fittingly, New Horizons will never catch up to the Voyager probes.

I say "fittingly" because, to me, this decade of technological innovation seemed to be horribly offset by the cultural and ethical bankruptcy plaguing the "civilized" world. Two wars by the world's only superpower, border claims by the heir to the mantle (China), a clash of fundamentalism with an increasingly hollow-sounding liberal ethos. I say hollow-sounding because I've lost faith in the intellectual elite to lead this world. You probably have too. The gigantic failure of the free market lead not only to an economic recession, but to a religious uprising. I personally have nothing against religion, but religious uprisings historically result in uprisings of fundamentalist elements, and we've seen that too. The world we've inherited is now inherently more religious than secular, and more intolerant than inclusive (Switzerland, shame on you for the damn minaret ban), a world where Creationism, an inherently intolerant philosophy that claims that one religion's idea of how the world started is the only correct one, is actually successfully battling in schools against evolution. Don't take my word for it, look it up.

The 70s had music, drugs, women's lib, tremendous spaceflight innovation. In the 70s, you'd have the United States as an example of how successful democracy could be and the USSR to show you how lofty ideals are ultimately doomed to fail when vested in frail mortals. I know, I know, an overly romantic view of the 70s, after all, the Cold War had its fair share of intrigue, murder, plotting (by both sides), wars, hatred... but this was supposed to be the NEW MILLENIUM (note capital letters). What happened to the glowing future we were all waiting for? Instead of a utopian future, we walked into the new age wounded, our optimism and love tarnished, surprisingly, by faith in God (fundamentalist terrorism). It seems right to me that Voyager I and II can never be surpassed by New Horizons, in some weird twisted way.

I'm deeply disappointed in the political leaders of this world- for Iraq, for Iran, for Copenhagen, for Afghanistan, for all of Africa. I'm disappointed in myself and my generation, and sad that we have no clear causes to stand up in favor of. In the 70s, our parents' had a lot of clear cut ideals they could support and if necessary, fight for. In India, we had a rising green revolution and a growing young population. Now, the youth in my country have inherited a mess- political corruption, hard-line hinduism, conversion by Christianity and Islam (forced, deathbed, "coaxed"... now in 53 flavors!), communal violence, and the damn Nehru family (who started the Kashmir problem in the first place, my what short memories we have). What do we fight for? How do we choose restraint when restraint means that a potentially worthy cause will perish? How do we pick a side when every side is tainted?

Tell me, my parents, family, friends, how do we do right by ourselves? How do we believe in God when believing in God is causing violence, death and the Dark Ages over and over again? Is a little light worth large amounts of darkness? What is my Dharma, when the people who defined Dharma in the first place were backward, sexist and not forward thinking?

I choose science. I urge you to do the same. Science needs guidance though, lest it produces another Hiroshima. God cannot guide science through 'his' oft-failing representatives on Earth. Politicians with corrupt agendas cannot guide science.

Where do we begin cleaning the debris? What is OUR cultural New Horizon?

Death in the New World

This is probably the first blog post I'm writing for myself as much as for others. It's about death, and what death means to us today.

In the Old World, all across the globe, death was celebrated as a release from life, as a return to the gods, to the primordial womb that birthed us all. People grieved for a loved one's passing, but nevertheless, there was nothing bitter about it. The wise men and women of that age knew the inevitability of death, and that any grief and loss was only to those who survived their love ones' passing, and that the dead are beyond pain, suffering, grief or loss. They become a part of all of us, just like you and I are a part of each other.

Today, it is not so. Death in the Christian Era has been viewed as something to be fought off, and Life something to cling on to. Inevitably, with the notion that lives are given in service to mankind comes a stigma attached to taking one's life, and the idea that it is an unforgivable sin against God.

I personally believe this is not so. Suicide is a waste of a life, yes, but in the eyes of a God, those who commit suicide must be so much more special in that they felt enough sorrow, anger, rage or despair that they wanted to abandon their mortal shells. If God exists, he is the God of Love as well, and he will extend to them the comfort and warmth that they deserve in their pain. God does NOT inflict pain on those who are already hurting, he shelters them.

Say this out loud with me, if you can:

"To our brothers and sisters who leave us abruptly through their own choosing, I apologize. I should've been there for you. Nothing should make you feel that you are not loved. Nothing should make you feel that there is nobody for you to turn to when you are in pain. I love you, I share your pain, and I will grieve for you.

I will live on your behalf, and see things you might've wanted to see. I will live my life, not cling to it. I will savour every experience. I will live such a full life that when I do join you someday, I will be able to tell you of everything I did in your name. You will not be forgotten."

Rest in Peace, man.