curiosity_jigyasa: (Default)
Once I came across a Facebook post on Hindustan Times where it said how a woman being harassed by husband killed him pouring boiling oil on his head. Well, the ‘feminists’ there defended her saying she was right as ‘killing an evil is not an evil deed.’ Though I saw a reply saying the lady was wrong, and that she shouldn’t have done so. But majority echoed in woman’s favor. I strongly disagree with everyone who took the woman’s side. She was thoroughly wrong; killing a culprit never kills the crime. Osama has been killed, but I still see the terrorism AND terrorists around us. Every day we see how people are killed on the streets, roads, malls etc. it is obvious to me that all of them are not ‘good’ people, so have they taken the evil with them? I don’t think so. Taking revenge has never been a solution; it never was. Some people think of it as ‘solution’ because of their narrow mentality. They will help one taking the revenge and spread negativity in the world. I recall J. R. R. Tolkien’s words”It is useless to meet revenge with revenge; it heals nothing.” This is something that I want everyone to know about. Recently having seen a film (Ek Villain) that really confirmed Tolkien's words to me. In the film the lead protagonist is murdered by a serial murderer and her husband being a “villain” in the past avenges her death. The man who murdered her was rejected by his wife (who constantly reminded him how big looser he was) and society. To become a “hero” in his wife’s eyes and to take revenge for his humiliation he starts murdering the women who say a single word to him. In this order he murders the female protagonist, and her husband seeks revenge. By the end of the film the wife of the murderer is murdered by Villain’s ex-boss and he (the murderer) himself dies leaving a 10 years old son behind. So, this is the perfect example albeit “fictional’ that two wrongs do not make ONE right, because this is not only the matter of imaginary world but of our own. Fiction comes from reality, not reality comes from fiction.
curiosity_jigyasa: (Default)
A message by George Carlin was posted somewhere. George Carlin, a comedian has said something so true that is mindblowingly poignant. Here is the message that was posted:
The Paradox of our Time
“We have taller buildings, but shorter tempers; wider freeways, but narrower viewpoints. We spend more, but have less; we buy more, but enjoy it less. We have bigger houses, and smaller families; more conveniences, but less time; we have more degrees, but less sense; more knowledge, but less judgment; more experts, but more problems, more medicine, but less wellness. We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get too angry too quickly, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too seldom, watch TV too much, and pray too seldom. We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values. We talk too much, love too seldom and hate too often. We have learned how to make a living, but not a life; we have added years to life, not life to years. We have been all the way to the Moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet the new neighbor. We have conquered outer space, but not inner space. We have done larger things, but not better things. We have cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul. We have split the atom, but not our prejudice. We write more, but learn less. We plan more, but accomplish less. We learned to rush, but not to wait. We build more computers to hold more information to produce more copies than ever, but have less communication.”
There is really no doubt that we ARE living in this ‘dark’ time. Things are hated with passion, and haters take pride in doing so. How I wish we could stop this hatred, irresponsible attitude, wastage of good things. It is said if we do not think it is necessary to love the person who loves us like anything—be it a friend, parent, teacher, grandparents or anyone— then why is it so important for us to hate those who hate us? Why we cannot let go of such people? And often it is not the person we hate who hates us, it is someone who we think is “stupid”. Life is very short and it should not be wasted in hating others. When are we going to learn that? My feelings towards haters have always been that only WEAK people are able to hate. When you are strong you forgive and forget. Obviously it’s not easy to ‘forgive and forget’ but this is not impossible either. By saying no-no to hatred I’m not saying we should love everyone or everything. Gray color can be appreciated for the existence of both black & white. If we see black color, we can’t most certainly say it’s white or something. Hatred spreads negativity and causes our society to do evil things. Murder, kidnapping, rape, abuse and even wars take place because of this hatred. It does no good to our world; the only thing hatred does is Damage. Countless people have lost their lives because this one feeling. Though it can be said there ought to be an opposition. Without winter we wouldn’t appreciate the spring, without loss we wouldn’t appreciate anything- similarly without hate love cannot be appreciated. Yet excess of anything is bad—it has always been so. The excess of hatred is bad. It keeps us from appreciating the beauty of our world. It has done irrecoverable damage to us. I hope people come out of it one day—I’ll keep the hope alive!
curiosity_jigyasa: (Default)
Frodo, supposedly, is the least famous character of the epic saga of JRR Tolkien.He is often accused of being “whiney”, “wimp”, and “loser”. To be honest, he doesn’t deserve any of these “honorable” titles. His life, story and sacrifices are beyond most of the people’s comfort. Haters claim him to be a “loser” (as I already mentioned above)—pretty cool word, right? Most people find pleasure in bashing this wonderful Hobbit. Some claim that his creator, i.e. Professor Tolkien, meant his friend to be the “true hero” of his story. When you say, “Sam Gamgee is the true hero of the quest,” you not only [in a sense; and CONCIOUSLY] exaggerate* Sam’s role, but devalue Frodo’s too. Sam’s motivation was his love for his master—had it not been for Frodo, Sam would never have set out on the quest. It was his devotion for Frodo that kept him going, and it was his master’s sufferings that inspired him to do the work for Frodo. “The quest would claim his life,” is what Lady Galadriel had said [in the movie]; the quest DID claim his life! He came back home, what you’d say ‘alive’, but he did not survive the war—he died more than once. His decision to spare poor Sméagol’s life became the reason of his salvation, and that of Middle-Earth too. What makes me say that he is the hero of the LOTR saga is not the fact that the story is about him, rather he, despite being and acknowledging [that he was] “wholly inadequate to the task” decides to take the task upon him that he could easily turn away from. Professor says so as well:
“Frodo undertook his quest out of love- to save the world he knew from disaster at his own expense if he could; and also in complete humility, acknowledging that he was wholly inadequate to the task. His real contract was only to do what he could, to try to find a way, and to go as far as his strength of mind and body allowed. He did that.”
Why we, as readers, have problems in acknowledging that he DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE IGNORED AND JUDGED TOO HARSHLY? There was no one who could have done this much. “Possibly no other of his time would have got this far,” is what professor says. Is there anyone else you can imagine going as far as Frodo did? Sam? He became reluctant in giving back the Ring in a couple of hours. Was that his love for his Master? Indeed it was—and he wanted to rid his master from that torment; and The Ring tried to control him from that. What Sam does out of his love for his friend, he, if appointed for the task of being the main person [i.e. Frodo’s], would never have taken upon him. Not saying that he was bad or something, but it was his character that in fact was like that, and it helped him through his journey to Mordor. Sam’s strength came from Frodo’s sacrifices. Imagine him [Sam] this way:
Frodo is asleep and Sam wakes him up.
Frodo (getting angry): You, idiot!!! You know I need more sleep than you do. Why don’t you let me sleep? It won’t take much if I sleep little more—I’m already tired.
Sam: Yes, Mr. Frodo, I’m sorry.
Frodo is starving. He wants Sam to give him some food, while Sam is busy in taking care of other things. Frodo would scold Sam for not taking care of him “properly” while Sam does everything he can do for his dear friend. What if Frodo acted rudely with Sam, acknowledging NOTHING that Sam does for him?
In this case, what does Frodo do?
Behaves with Sam rudely?
Or hides his problems so that Sam should not worry about him much? If you read the 1st book, you’d see Frodo already goes through so much. His Morgul-blade wound, Gandalf’s death, Galadriel’s words to him [of Elves’ fading] and Boromir’s betrayal—how much of it Sam truly knew? He did not understand the deep meaning of his Master’s physical and emotional wounds. Frodo wasn’t a failure, as is suggested by most. Events at Sammath Naur cannot be defined by words like “failure” or “success”. Things are much more complicated than a careless reader realizes. His life and its ending are a mystery—

*Exaggeration MUST not be taken as ‘over-rating’. I understand Sam’s importance and his true value.


curiosity_jigyasa: (Default)

August 2016



RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 26th, 2017 09:18 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios