the biblical expression, that ‘god made man in his image’ gives both that conceptual god and his creation, man, the absolute free hand to do what pleases them. that man being god’s image has no higher authority to be answerable to. man in god’s image is like one’s reflection in the mirror. it has no independent existence except the visual reflection of god called man. it is bible’s final version that is accepted as the true data of how things came to be from god downward.
unlike the biblical god, the indian mythological and historical texts depict even the creator shiva and prince buddha begged for food despite being the creators who set in motion the dharmachakra, the wheel of dharma, that which holds in motion as such. aside from the belief of the single source creator/creation, like the pea size pod making the big bang, or the concept of god fabricating the universe, it seems to be a cooperating work of various elements. but even in that perception each of these elements would have that aspect of motion functioning in a particular way. it would be the same aspect of the motion with a precise way. whether that be of the original, or the mind of the originating element itself. it being formed of no previous design and had no script to refer to and act accordingly in the director’s gaze. the only elemental characteristic there is what holds each element to be what it is in all its sense of being. and being is not a dead state. so every element be-es in constance, which is nature of things and beings.
now that being so, it would be natural - which is logical mode of behaviour of elements, that the creator playwright, the director, actors, audience and the reviewer critic, all are components of the divine theatre, including the spoofs and parodies on the original theme.
if one reads the folklore, children’s stories and the serious literary stories, there are the bible/gita inspired evil characters, the lucifers, satans – and evil characters, like the axis of evil countries designated by the u.s. presidents. without the bad guys there cannot be the justification for the god rewarding the good guys ultimately offering them the place in heaven. kashmir was the heaven for jahangir the mogul emperor of india; his famous words, “ghar firdaus uhe zamin ast, hamin asto, hamin asto, hamin ast.” (if there is ever a heaven on earth, it's here, it's here, it's here.) and the indian and pakistani believers have been killing each other neither reaching this heaven nor the biblical heaven.
the european thinker, descarte created a form for the thinker that is purely linguistic, and like the language it exists and expresses verbally or non-verbally only in words, spoken or written. now, like that texas cowboy saying – “sometimes i sits and thinks, but most often i just sits”, what distinguishes a thinker from others is that the thinker does not distinguish between the physical body that thinks and what it thinks. it is like the living and experiencing in a dream. it all feels real while dreaming.
now the problem with this perpetual dream, the living in thought, the thinker does not see any thing or person as each one is, but rather treats, or strives to treat as pliable objects that can be moulded to match one’s desired usage of it. it is not just people like hitler or any war monger president who has the means and methods to make the whole lot of people act like the automated toys, but even a child tries to manipulate its mother to do what the child wants by crying and cooing; lovers make their beloved yield to their demand by the gifts of pearls and diamonds – a kind of drawing a child to lollipop; employers by the offering of pay raise; the audience by the cheering of the performers. and since the god of the thinker is the creation of his thought, such god, too, can be manipulated by the prayers and all that the thinker thinks are dear to god.
all such behaviour is well and good if “i think, therefore i am.” and further that, there is only one thinker and that is me, and the every thing is my creation as i thought. but in the real world even the identical twins cannot control their behaviour to be identical when they interact with different persons who have their different requirements. thus, when two persons meet, there are two persons only in biological physical sense, otherwise there six persons: one as one biologically exists, one as the person thinks one is, and one as one would like to be seen by the other and. then there are the three versions the another person one meets. one’s existence is thus divided when one acts out according to the role one plays, like an actor on the stage. it creates a jumble of “i think so; i don’t think so” in almost all human interactions where the very purpose of meeting and interaction is created by the thought out requirements of the thinker.
now who is this thinker? why does one think? thinking itself has been thought over, and thought to be existing as just the thought, and like the thought having the descriptive existence of words of language. the thinker in such world of thought is any one who has all one’s means of existence secured. in the economy created way of life the rush is there fore to acquire gobs and oodles of money that enables the rich person to just sit and think-live, not unlike a child playing with toys.
there is in internet a photograph of the british viceroy of india seated with his almost countless servants of the royal palace. in the royal formatted hierarchy, they are the servants serving the servants serving the servants. it is the same protocol in the armed forces and commercial structures, each one in turn creating and feeding upon and fed by egos of others on each side of one’s placement. this has created colonial indian sayings: “the weak sepoy is almighty in the ghetto of the untouchables” and “the weakling of man is still tyranical for his wife.” it is not that the indian women were physically weak to defend themselves against their husbands. but it was the sociological set up in which the man’s might was buoyed by the status enabling him the consequential support that punished the woman. it was the same set up that physically strong negroid slaves to cower to the physically weaker white slave owner. and it is the same line of thinking, that a rich man or his corporation prevails in court cases regardless of the merits of the complaints. it is this socioeconomic placement of the thinker that enables him to act as the judge, jury and the executioner.
only the roles are reversed in revolutions that are based on the power of violent persuasion, and changes are only the change of guards. the thought is created by the sense of lack of whatever one thinks to be essential to one’s existence. since thinking ability is prized in the urban way of life, the rush is secure a situation in which one has all the time one thinks one needs to think. in this stance there is no difference between a bill gates, bezos or the persons they hire to clean their toilets. they all think alike. only the theme of their thinking changes.
do you think? what do you think?