What is Freedom?

Freedom to me is to be free from the bondage of perceptions. In other words, freedom to me, is not to be under the influence or under the spell of my perceptions. I have had varied perceptions, and my perceptions have been contradictory to other perceptions at other times. When have I accepted perceptions perceived by me? When I have accepted the unity behind the perceptions toward what I am perceiving. There are perhaps, two ways to accept the unity behind the perception, toward what I am perceiving. One is to see the myriad manifestations of the perceptions of what I am perceiving, and accept the perceptions, as I perceive them. The second is to accept what I perceive as a constant, and then to accept the myriad perceptions on what I perceive. However, belief and disbelief can be compared to the same person, wearing different clothes at different times. We believe one perception about a person, and disbelieve another perception about the same person. Belief and disbelief is not about believing what is true, and disbelieving what is false. We believe what we feel is good, and disbelieve, what we think is bad, about a person. A false statement, is one which we believe has not a good motive behind the statement, by the person who makes the statement. Or in other words, it is the negative feeling behind the statement, that makes it false. The person who makes the statement, if he can accept the negativity of the feeling behind the statement, his words are accepted as true by the perceiver of his words. But in this case, the person who makes the negative statement is disowned, though his negative statement is accepted. How, then, can I be free of my perceptions? This is the question. Perhaps, I should exist with my myriad perceptions, but the perceptions should not be given importance, even though all careful attention should be lavished on the perceptions. This may look like a contradictory statement. Why should the perceptions not be given importance? because if we give all perceptions importance, we give our negative perceptions importance, too. Negativity, is rejection, and it is rejected first, by the person who has the negative perception. So it is no wonder, that it is rejected by the others who perceive the perceiver, and his perception. In this state of affairs, why should we lavish attention, and carefully, on our perceptions? Because our organs of perception when uncontrolled, looks for objects of perception to perceive, and perceives the first object of perception, that it perceives, whether good, bad, or indifferent. What is a good perception? What is a bad perception? How do we feel negatively, or positively about a perception? This is an idea, but we feel positively, about what we want to feel positively about, and negatively about what we want to feel negatively about, we may even feel indifferently about a perception. If I see a sick man on the roadside,I may feel negatively, positively, or indifferently. The person who sees the sick man, and his situation negatively, has a negative perception on the situation of the sick man. A man who sees his own situation in a negative perspective, for example a depressed suicide, may look at the situation odf the sick man positively,and feel happy, that the man may die soon. An indifferent man, would feel indifferent, because he sees himself, not any better or worse off from the sick man on the road, even if he be a rich man, himself. So, all the perceptions, to be fair to all the perceivers, have validity, to the perceivers. But the way I view the perceivers, I see a grave injustice done by all the perceivers toward the sick man. Whose perception would you support? The sick man has an ailment,and people have opinions on the sick man's situation. Perhaps, if one tells a sick man, that he will die soon, then he will not care, he being more preoccupied with his sickness. I mean, a simple, normal sickness. Now, can the sick man, not help dying, if he has to die? No, but how do the perceptions of the others, help the others? Are they free of their perceptions? If they ponder their perceptions, then they are free of their perceptions. A person who questions his own perceptions, when he perceives, is free from the bondage of his perceptions, when he perceives. This is perhaps freedom. A man, is free of perceptions, and hence, is free, when he knows, that he cannot help himself, nor others, but he can do, what he can do in his situation, and nothing more.

Religion.

Religion is, to me, experiencing what I cannot express as an experience, to others. I have not initiated myself into reflecting on religion. I always took the existence of God for a fact. My parents told me about the existence of God, when I was a young boy. I remember praying as a young boy, and I do remember that no one told me to pray. I watched my mother pray, and I started praying on my own. I prayed to God, sincerely, so sincerely, that it was as if I was speaking to myself. I used to ask for the well being of my family, and my pet dogs, without a hint of emotion, as if God was sitting in front of me. My mother to me, was the most profound experience, that I had as a child. But the person who introduced me to God, as an entity, who could be communicated to, as one communicates to a living entity, was Sri Ramakrishna Paramhamsa.I have not experienced God, but through Sri Ramakrishna Paramhamsa.What is religion? Belief in God, any belief in God, is religion. Perhaps, I had experienced God, earlier, before I had introduced myself to Sri Ramakrishna Paramhamsa. But I did not know, of my introduction to God. I was told, that there is a God, and he listens to our prayers, but I did not experience God as "God", because I had no concept of God. As a child I believed totally in God, whom I had not seen, heard, felt, listened to, etc. When I prayed to him, he existed, without existing. If someone had asked me, on whom I was praying to, I would have answered. If I were asked where God was, I would not have answered. When I read Sri Ramakrishna's words on God, it was as if I could not have dreamed to have uttered those words, but I had uttered those words nonetheless. How could a mere man have even dreamed to have said the words, which he said? If a mere man could have uttered those words, then I would have. But how did the words have such a profound impact on me, as if I was the person, who was saying the words? Even his words of chastisement are agreeable, because I see the truth in what he says. If he had uttered them to me, I would have agreed wholeheartedly. If previously, I had experienced religion on my own accord, now I experience religion, as it should be experienced. I have still not seen God, nor communicated with God.

The Ambiguity of Accountability.

I support Dr Ramadoss on his stand concerning smoking. If a child has a cigarette, he is not accountable to his health. If an adult has a cigarette, how is the adult accountable? Suppose, a lung cancer patient, insists on smoking. Why should the child be asked to desist from smoking, if found to do so, and the lung cancer patient be dismissed as hard headed? In a democracy, there is ambiguity in accountability. This is the reason, that France, the nation which invented democracy, wants a uniform code of norms. Which to my mind, is very undemocratic. The undemocratic mode of this being can be found out if it exists in a nation like India. Should all Indians dress or talk like Maharashtrians or Madrasis? The esteemed communities mentioned will themselves balk at the mention of the idea. The uniqueness of the named communities will then vanish. They will have no identity. If the law makes an example of the wrongdoer, then to facilitate compliance with the law, adults will make an example of children. For mistakes in schoolwork, children may be beaten, as they are very commonly, or used to be, very commonly. Hypothetically, in a democracy, the creed of "an eye for an eye" should work admirably. If a human being is responsible for his own life, and if he takes another persons life, then how should a responsible person pay in kind? In a fine and functioning democracy, the awareness of crime should exist, but crime should not exist. Everyone who holds himself accountable in a democracy, should have no complaints as to the consequences of his actions, and everyone should be accountable to himself for the consequences of his actions. I see people 'wanting to have the cake, and eat it too'. A lady, for example, may want to be treated as a first class citizen, even if it be at the expense of another man being treated as a second class citizen. For an example, a lady may be very cordial and mindful towards her husband, but towards her manservant, she may be less so, and expect the manservant to be more respectful and cordial towards her, in turn. I believe, a fundamental basis of function should exist, separate from the existence of communities, and modes of existence. Perhaps, we may not go as far as France, in forging a national identity, but we may have a fundamental code of behavior and existence, which is fundamental and common to all the peoples of India.