If I were you...

Another nagging-for-some-time-now issue at the back of my mind is this usage of "If I were you, I'd do/not do this/that" for a simple suggestion/advice you ask someone. I started noticing this only with some American colleagues but then realized most of us Indians here have adopted that too.
-
Why can't people just say do this or do that if we ask them something. I mean, if you are so wary about being blamed for directly telling the asker to do something he/she might later blame you for, you have a perfectly valid reason for saying whatever you said, because it was the asker who asked you what he/she should do, which is why you told him/her whatever you did.
-
It is quite possible that I am being this ultra-sensitive, touchy kind of character but, frankly, when someone tells me - "If I were you, I'd buy this", it gives me this slippery kind of feeling - as if the person is trying to be a diplomatic smart-ass and trying to nazhuvify from what they said. Ok, I have no right to complain or grumble when an American speaks to me this way - it's how he (since there is no she) has been speaking all his life. If I were to complain about this, then I would start complaining about his accent, etc. Not happening. Not fair, since I don't know if our way is the correct way to say it. But when fellow Indians, that too, really close friends from home speak to me in the same way, I am forced to resort to blogging. [:D]
-
Please don't blame me for being this nitpicky maamiyaarish eternally-kutham-kandupudichufying character. Yes, I do find it irritating when Desis here use "Sounds good" for any (absolutely ANY) kind of plan/idea/agreement, etc. if it's ok or "I'm not sure if that's going to work out" for anything not ok, "Preeshiyate it" for any help done (Who is Preeshi? What did she eat?). Yes, I understand it's a decent polite way of saying yes/no but to me, this decency seems artificial, that too, within friends. But then, I'm not blogging about that, am I? [;)]
-

• First of all, the statement is logically flawed. Whenever someone says "If I were you..." the remainder of the statement ceases to hold any significance. Why - because you are not me, you just are NOT me. Then why in the world would either you or me be bothered about what you would be doing if you were me?
• CBM - A straightforward statement like "Machi, do this da" or "I think this would be a better option for you" sounds so much more reassuring than an "I would if I were you" statement. I agree that the part "If I were you" gives us the impression that the other person was trying to put himself in our shoes, but when we realize next second that the other person is not us, it sounds much less confident. I understand that "If I were you" is synonymous with "If I were in your situation", which is more realistic, nevertheless, it still is not as confidence-building as "This is the better option."
• More logical flaw - Ok, you are not me. But, even if we could somehow imagine you being me, how and when can you define that you are actually me? Do circumstances (the oft-quoted sandarbha-soozhnelaigal from Tamil Cinema) define a person or is it his opinions or is it his appearance? Or is it his name?

Consider the following conversation -

Tring Tring Tring Tring...

Obama - Hello Yaar Pesardhu?
Osama - Nee dhaan da pesare.
Obama - Ada...'S'aanavane...Wassup dude?
Osama - (Smirking) I see old habits die hard...oru 'B'ya vechu enna aattam aattare?
Obama - Don't say that. You are trying to suppress and oppress and
depress the view of the American.
Osama - Hayyo Hayyo. Anyways, I've been hiding for some time now.
Bored. Want to come out with a bang. Any idea where I can start?
Obama - Dude, we're already screwed. If I were you, I'd go for China.
Osama - Hey B, good one. There's something brewing in Uighur too. Let
me check that out. Sounds good. Preeshiyet it.
Obama - Chao then. Take care buddy. Catch you later.

You see? Obama isn't Osama and even if he was Osama, he needn't necessarily do what Osama would want to do, nor what is good for Osama.
That's what I'm trying to say. Catch my point?
--
PS: Sorry Anand, you started it. [:D]

The Pseudo Brahmin Syndrome - Comments...

A comment in response to my post "The Pseudo Brahmin Syndrome". I thought this comment addressed a lot of concerns people might have, and it raises a lot of relevant points, hence, posting the comment as another post despite it being longer than my actual post. :D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arvind's Comment -

Machi.. i thot of posting this in your comments section, but then my comment(s) is bigger than you article. So, if its OK with you, you post it or jus read it and delete it.

NO Offence INTENDED :D
============================================================

sssss... u have too much time on ur hands.. :D

I fit almost all the descriptions of your vetti observations. Yes, I do not do the Sandhyavandhanam. And i did not do it when I was in India too. Vakkanaya veshti is also another category i belong to. For the above two, i do not have any excuses.

Yes, I support BJP and bash up RSS. Here is my observation about the RSS. I have no idea about its origins. I don’t know what their ideals are. But i hate them because of their vigilante actions. They have no right to bully/beat up/physically harm people who celebrate Valentine’s Day. We live in a free world. I'd like to do whatever i want (whatever translates to "whatever reasonable thing") that is allowed by the law of the land. I don’t like someone harassed by these idiots because they were holding hands or because their store was selling heart shaped balloons.

Yea, Eggs. I don’t eat it as such, but i eat egg products. Again, guilty as charged. But then, remember (this is as far as I know.. from what my grandma told me), if someone is a "true brahmin" he/she is not supposed to eat onions/murungakkai/kathrikkai etc etc.. apparently, these are all "madi kurachal". And if you really think about it, you cannot eat anything that has been processed. Not the chips (They might have used the same oil to fry non-veg stuff before/after frying the chips), not the cookies (baked and most probably contains eggs), not in saravana bhavan (the uyar thara seiva unavagam.. cause of the madi korachal items) nor anywhere else because you don’t know where the karandi’s and plates came from/ where they were used before, or who cleaned them or if they cleaned them at all..

Thanni.. I don’t really know where (in brahminism) they said consuming alcohol is against the principles.. But again, I cant fathom why one would want to drink too.. so, no comments there. And if you really are worried about alcohol, you shouldn’t be using mouthwash/aftershave etc etc.. Man, I’m damn sure, I wanna use both of them!

Smoking.. this is kinda interesting.. this might be my view and Im pretty sure my view is totally wrong. But I have this to say. The nicotine/tobacco is bad. But how come all my old mamas/thathas chew veththalai? And most of them with the panneer pogayelai.. Its even worse.. OK.. not just the mamas/thathas, but the paatis/athais/mamis too..

Yes, the vadhiyar mamas are supposed to educate us, the lesser Brahmins. However, we, the lesser Brahmins are also supposed to provide them with enough food/dakshinai’s etc etc for their subsistence, which I’m pretty sure will not happen unless we are forced. When that happens, the quality of the Vadhiyar mamas go down and they are forced to fleece the people thay can find. Man, we bought this upon ourselves.

Coming to the part of you considering yourself as a ”Quasi Brahmin”. I’m really sorry to say this and for being so blunt, you are not a Pseudo Brahmin, not a Quasi-Brahmin. I’d say you are not a Brahmin. That’s is. You left the punya bhoomi of India a couple of years ago and that is something that is Condemned by the shastras.

I know you do the sandhyavandhanam everyday. I have one question about the sankalpam part. How do you do it? I mean, the “bharata varshe bharatah kande meror dakshine parsve sakabde” etc part doesn’t apply at all. I’ve seen some vadhiyars here in the US say “America Varshe” etc.., but that doesn’t seem right.. or does it? Also, I thought the reason why our forefathers did the sandhyavandhanam early in the day, outside the house was because: to maximize the available working time (this made them get up early, getting ready early for the day by taking the snanam as soon as day light broke) and to get fresh air while they did the sandhyavandhanam and clear out their heads which would make them energetic. But then, if I were to do it here, neither would the slokas be relevant to this land, nor would I be able to do it outside because of the frigid weather. So, the primary purpose is not being served. Is it? Also, the Brahmins are supposed to be more leaning towards the path of learning the Vedas & stuff and not to make money. That is not happening either these days, is it? So, its either the everyone is is “Quasi-Brahmin” or not a Brahmin at all and the “pure-brahmin” died centuries ago!!

PS: I have one advice for you mom & dad. Assuming that they are thinking about finding you a girl and marrying you off after 4 years, I’d ask them to start right now. And even then, 4 years won’t be enough to find a girl with the right “Quasi-Brahmin” status! :D
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Response
No offence taken (and none intended, needless to say), every single point you raised is valid. I don't know if you went through the comments, but I'd said pretty much what you say below, albeit very indirectly and to a much lesser extent. There's a guy called Ramana (Escape...Great Escape) who raised quite similar points.
-
Again, the whole point of my blog was directed mainly against those people who go around flaunting themselves as Brahmins. I may not know you well, but from what I know you - Yes, you accept to being a Brahmin, but you don't practise it enough (again, this is my opinion, that's all), consciously or otherwise. But I have not seen you going around with this attitude of being a Brahmin, someone *supposedly* superior intellectually/whatever crap. Neither have I seen you trying to justify your actions with some totally random, amazingly misguided, nonsensical illogical logic. (I don't know what kind of person I come across to you as, but though I have always had strongly Brahministic feelings [sans superiority or needless/unimportant discriminative/divisive tendencies] and believe in it a lot, I never intentionally flaunted it or carried this I-am-an-uruppadi-mayiru demeanour. Apologies if I did or came across that way. This is just fyi so you know me better, as a good friend.)
-
I know my post is quite long, and reading it once is a feat in itself. I don't want to peethify or put vetti scene, but if you read it again, you will probably understand it a bit better. Quite like my previous post on Arranged Marriage. There is an undercurrent of satire in the whole blog post which gives away my state of confusion, though I still stand by what I say, if you understand it the way I said it.
-
I mean, wrt this post, why, at all do we need to be a Brahmin? We need to be good human beings, first and foremost.
I didn't want to explicitly say this, but here goes - one doesn't have to be a good Brahmin to be a good human being. But one will have to be a good human being to be a good Brahmin. And what else does it require to be a good enough (since good isn't enough) Brahmin? No idea. I said I'm a quasi Brahmin, though I think I'm a quasi-pseudo-Brahmin. You said I'm not even a Brahmin. All opinions. Who is right? No idea. We are all right. Again, what is right? :D Ok, enough...but back to focus. Why, at all, do we need to be a Brahmin? Just because we were born to Brahmin parents? I hope you agree with me, at least when I say that we need to be good human beings, upholding some quintessential virtues and be righteous. Why? I have no answer. Why do we need to be good? Why does good need to win over evil? I don't know if you do, but since most of us agree on this, and it hasn't caused any harm, we think it is right that we ought to be right (as in correct, honest, truthful...) (though very few nowadays practise it completely, despite accepting it).

>> Opposing RSS...
Sad what's happening nowadays. Though the RSS' intentions are right, the way they are apparently doing it is wrong. Anyway, I never said that we should support the RSS as well, if we support the BJP. What I intended was for people to actually know about the origins of RSS and their nationalistic activities before supporting/opposing them. Period.

>> Eggs...
Refer http://cowmaaa.blogspot.com/2009/06/pseudo-brahmin-syndrome.html?showComment=1246504986369#c6399742968083623069. Again, difference in degree of practise...which is, again, subjective. What I intended to convey was that most of what I mentioned can be practised, if someone wants to be a decent-enough Brahmin...like doing Sandhi, not eating egg-containing items, etc...not practising which has obvious un-Brahminical features. That is why I did not talk about the current-day Brahmin's pursuit of money and material happiness, which is a much more difficult and impractical thing to attempt to follow. I feel, given the number of options we have available today, we can definitely practise pure vegetarianism (as long it doesn't have "obvious" Egg/NV stuff...). It isn't quite as practical to not eat vengaayam, etc. Again, this is *my opinion*. For you, it might not be practical to not eat cakes. It is, hence, again, perception. My humility in not being afraid of being proven wrong made me express my egoistic thought that my perception is probably correct.

>> Thanni...
Manu Smriti - Canto 9, Chapter 15, Stanza 44. How I wish I could've quoted something like it! Unfortunately, I can't, at least immediately. But don't we all know the ill-effects of booze? How it can cause deterioration of thought/mind/body for man? This is something which is applicable to mankind, as a whole, and not only to Brahmins.

>> Smoking...
Fair. Totally agree.

>> Vadhiyaar mamas...
"Kodutha kaasukku ozhunga koovanum" - this is my qualm. I don't see it happening, I've seen a lot of it. My poonal ceremony, for example. Plus a few more. As for what you're saying, I don't think anyone really ill-treated them or anything, at any point of time, the way you are saying, as if we ill-treated them financially. However, "mariyaadhai kodukkaraa maadhiri nadandhunda thaana mariyaadhai kadaikkum", is all I can say.

>> Punya bhoomi...
"If anyone thinks they can be a proper correct Brahmin living anywhere but India, then they are kidding themselves as much as they would be, if they thought Pakistan is not a Banana Republic" - is another statement I wanted to add to the blog, but refrained from doing due to space & time constraints (considering my reader's plight :D). Again, if you are considering that a person can be disqualified from being a Brahmin solely because of this, it's again opinion (right or wrong, you and I don't know). It is there in writing in one of the texts, Sure, but the same texts also forbid us from eating vengaayam and the same text says a Brahmin should not earn money, his food should be earned by begging, etc. So it's just a degree of interpretation.

>> Sandhi...Sankalpam...
To clarify, I don't do the Sandhyavandanam everyday. I chant the Gayatri Japam in the morning and evening. Though I want to do it more regularly, I end up doing the full Sandhyavandanam only occasionally ==> Me a quasi-pseudo-Brahmin.
"but that doesn’t seem right" - I love you for saying this, it reverberates with truth. Totally. Plus, refer to the previous paragraph. Reiterated.

I don't know if you are aware of this serial called "Enge Brahmanan" by Cho. I tried to watch it, but didn't have enough time. Parents watched it fully. The conclusion was that there is no Brahmin on earth today. :(

Ultimately, the same question haunts me again. Why do we need to be a Brahmin? I mean, I can see a lot of sense in most of the practises, sure, but beyond that, I seriously don't know. If it is good to be a Brahmin if you are born as one, then why is Brahminism dying such a slow painful death? Let it be quick and painless...a total annihilation. If, as the Sastras say, everything goes wrong in Kali Yuga...is this one of those things? Then what about that single Brahmnan during the Maha Pralayam?
Questions, questions more questions...
Some confusion. No, lot of confusion. Great to think all this, but disturbing that there are no answers, or that the answers are so very inconclusive.
SO wondering out aloud. I know my writings have a high degree of not being rightly understood. Whatever. At least I can rest in the happiness that I managed to confuse a couple of others...
What say?
;-)

The Pseudo-Brahmin Syndrome

It struck me as a rather sad irony that most of those crying hoarse at the Congress for being pseudo-seculars ("sickulars") I happened to know were no less pseudo themselves...pseudo-Brahmins.
-
If asserting one's religious identity for its inherent positive "meaning" and a plethora of wonderfully meaningful practices & rituals, without succumbing to divisive tendencies and needless, harmful discrimination...and if using the knowledge imparted by my (ancient, not more recent) forefathers who practised the system to see(k) meaning in life and learn more about the Self is being casteist, then I confess I am a jaadhi-veri pudichavan and a casteist of the first order.
-
I am not here to claim the superiority of Brahmins (that we are definitely NOT, especially Brahmins of today), neither the superiority of the (non-divisive) practices of Brahminism. I am not here to even try to explain them (ala "Enge Brahmnan"). I don't think I would be misguided/horrendously wrong if I say that a lot of the habits/rituals/customs that Brahmins are supposed to practice, do have a lot of meaning contained in them. I'm talking about habits like - eating, performance of the Sandhyavandanam, meditation and these are, in turn, supposed to lead to a thought process of helping others, intellectual exploration, improving the life & living of the lesser privileged, contributing to nation-building, etc.
-
However, I am intrigued by those who call themselves Brahmins, today. The Brahmin of today no longer is remotely similar to the Brahmin of yore. However, the ideals that Brahmins strived to attain in the earlier days are very relevant even today, as they will be, eternally, like the tenets of Sanatana Dharma. Again, I don't want to go on and rant about those practices.
And I don't even have the authority to explicitly mention how a Brahmin should be today, and how best he can assimmilate his old habits for contemporary existence. But some traits are so distinctly hypocritical and obvious that they have pseudo-ness written all over them. These are not people who have renounced Brahminism totally. I would really respect such people, but this category sends shivers down my spine. These are the people who claim to be Brahmins but live far away from Brahminism, and try to defend their actions as being "in-synch" with the times. Here are a few of my jobless observations -

• Ver'oda Pudungifying the Kadavul - These are the kind of people who frequent the Bay Area Livermore, Chicago Aurora and West Mambalam Satyanarayana temples and do big-big puja's like the Sudarshana Homam, Ganapathi Homam, etc. but don't care to do a simple 10-minute Sandhyavandanam everyday.
• Purappaadu/Ezhala Sevai, etc. - Vakkanaiya veshti kattindu these folks will somandhufy Utsavar on their shoulders and chant the Divya Prabhandam while being part of the Purappaadu. Fast forward 10 hours, and they will also say - "Dei b***u....", "O***i" and other sacred chants.
  
• Defending Hindutva - There's a large number of this group - staunch supporters of Hindutva who cry hoarse at the Congis for being pseudo-seculars, but hardly practice the art of sacrifice, helping others and nation-building. They don't know what the origins of the RSS are, yet staunchly support the BJP while bashing the RSS for being "communal".
  
• Inter-Caste Marriages - An interesting sub-group this. Note that I am not supporting or opposing inter-caste marriages here. But such folks have been "Brahmins" all their life and supposedly (claim to) like the culture and tradition and what not......and end up marrying some God-forsaken soul totally not on the lines of Brahminism (It's another story that most Brahmins today themselves are on the other side :P).
• Egg-eatarian - People, please understand. You can live a totally bindass life in the US or India without eating egg or egg-containing products. You have more than your supply of protein in "pure" vegetarian food, if you are willing to take the minute effort that is required. The US has never been more vegetarian-friendly in all its history (though there is some more way to go). The normal intolerable trash is that of not having enough protein intake. Punch those buggers in their face, will you?
• Eating outside - *US alert* There aren't enough vegetarian restaurants yet, agreed. But even a little imagination and thinking should be enough to show how much the vegetarian food that we eat outside is, actually vegetarian. It might be my personal opinion, but eating a piece of bread coated with beef/bacon/sausage is the same as eating proper non-vegetarian food. It's like the difference between spitting at Manmohan Singh and bashing him up with a club and a cricket bat. Ok...bad analogy, but get the point? Again, I am not saying you should not eat at Subway. But after eating there knowing how high the chance of mixing knives/spoons with non-vegetarian food is...don't call yourself a pure vegetarian. Especially when you go on that once-in-two-years trip to India, meet your onnu-vitta-periyamma and tell her, "Cha...naan US'ukku poiyum adhe chamathu payyana dhan irukken...non-veg pakkame poga maatten.\n"
  
• Thanni - It helps us mingle better machan...just social drinking. Puke in their glasses.
• Smoking - Cinema'la kaatra maadhiri Vaayila Deepavali Atom Bomb vechudanum.
  
• Vaadhiyaar Mama's - These guys are to Brahmins what Paper Masala Rava Dosai is to Dosai. They are supposed to mean the shlokas they chant and educate us (the lesser Brahmins), and they don't even know the meaning. Yes, this is the kind that blows the 'oodhubathi' with his mouth to turn off the fire. This is the mama who will commit the Sanskrit equivalent of singing "Jalasita ranga" for "Jaladhi taranga" (in case you don't know, in the Jana Gana Mana that is the Indian national anthem). Not to forget their amazing financial abilities.
  

For some reason, I feel how much ever the world changes and our practices change, wrt Brahminism, these things (at least) must not change -

• Eating
• Smoking/Drinking
• Practising the Sandhyavandanam/Chanting the Gayatri Japam
  
• Marrying within non-pseudo-Brahmins

Oh yes, I agree these are totally superficial features and a lot more is important, wrt exploring the self and trying to realize the Supreme. I may be missing the bigger picture by concentrating on the smaller parts. Fair...valid. But how many people do you see - who eat non veg and/or smoke/drink and/or don't chant any of the sacred mantras with sincerity and/or don't do their "Nitya Karma" and/or marry inter-caste/religion - who are actually even partially enlightened souls, actually? (In case you didn't know, Yes, there are a lot of fakes masquerading out there as having outgrown Brahminism and on the fast-track to self-realization. They kind of give you the impression that they are beyond all this, something like Advaita).
Will practising any/all of these habits then help then on the path of righteousness and goodness? Or self-realization or realization of the Supreme. Again, sadly, I cannot reply in the affirmative. But trust me, it goes a long way in improving your mental make-up and thought process. Really.
Sadly, I don't really know many of the duties that female Brahmins are supposed to perform, otherwise I would have happily bashed them too, as much as I did, my brethren. :(
-
So then, since I have talked like an uruppadi m****u myself, am I this proper Brahmin? No. In fact, I have no idea how a proper Brahmin of today should be. But I know enough to know when someone is nowhere close to being even a partial Brahmin. And that is what prompted me to write this post.
-
I know I'm going to be fried by you folks anyway -
If

• I claim not to be a pseudo, then I am this egoistic, self-opinionated, arrogant, pompous prat who thinks what he says (and follows) is true.

Else

• I am a filthy bloody hypocrite.
  

Thankfully, I can partially escape both. How - I think I can safely call myself a quasi-Brahmin, as opposed to a pseudo-Brahmin. I will not elaborate it here, just now. Mail me for details. :P
However, I just hope the characteristics of a Brahmin don't change much more. Like, say, for eg., egg-eaters will slowly come to be accepted as the norm for Brahmins. As mentioned earlier, I hope at least these practices remain strictly (thus, indirectly hoping for the more important identity to remain). Else, I really hope Brahminism is totally wiped out from the earth. No pseudo, no quasi, no proper. Nobody should know that anything called Brahminism existed. Apparently, this won't happen too, I am told. One pseudo-Brahmin once told me that when the world is about to end, i.e., just before the Maha-Pralayam, there will be exactly one Sad-Brahmanan (Sad as in Sanskrit, meaning Good) in the World who will do something, I don't know what.
Thankfully, I am not Him. I cannot imagine being Him. I just wont be able to bear it. I am also a Sad-Brahmanan, albeit of the English kind.

HELP!

Help me, God! My obsession with correctness and righteousness is driving me mad. I used to think that we ought to help only those people who are correct and/or righteous and/or good. I then realized I would use up all my time in first judging if someone was good/correct/righteous, and by the time I realized if they were indeed good/correct/righteous, they were beyond me helping them. Add to this my abysmal record at judging people.
Who am I to judge people anyway? What authority do I have?
Hence, I have decided that I am going to help anyone who needs help, as long as -
a. He/She is not Osama Bin Laden wanting to plant a bomb in WTC.
(Note: This means I am willing to help Osama Bin Laden do some good deed like planting trees and helping stray dogs :D, assuming, of course, that planting a bomb in WTC is bad ;-)
b. I don't know that the helpee (correct usage'a?) is someone bad AND I am helping them to do something that is not bad even if it is for their good.
I am wondering if I need to include any more categories. Let me know if you think I need to.
If my faith in God is anything to go by, I should reason that He knows who I will eventually help and if my faith is true, let the purpose of my help to the person be for a good cause. After all, I consider it a privilege and an honour to be of help to someone. If I were to keep trying to judge everyone who comes to me for help, I lose a valuable opportunity.
Quandary - What if someone not-so-good who has helped me in the past comes to me for help? Naturally, I am driven by gratitude to help them. But what if they, as mentioned, are not-so-good and/or the purpose I am helping them for is not-good-not-bad?
Orey Koshtamappa.

Why I shudder to think of Arranged Marriage

Marriage is that instrument of (mortally) eternal bliss that every one of us aspires for... no -- desires: union with that one person with whom we will (hopefully) realize life and (eventually) attain salvation. And so, it is imperative for us to find the right person. We seek the boy/girl of our dreams, or the one we haven't even dreamt about.
This being the case, it would be convenient if this person happened to be found to us (It's called Love Marriage, I am told). For lesser beings like me, the quest is to find that one person in this wide wide world.
The world is a difficult place today. No, I'm not talking about the recession or global warming. Simply, people have become more difficult. Actually, I will say that the main issue I've noticed is - people who are half-full are getting away with doing those things which only "properly full" people ought to have been able to do. Take me, for instance. I have a Master's in Computer Science. Indeed, a Master's is supposed to be quite something. But there are so many aspects of Computer Science which I totally lack. Programming, for instance. Ok, that's not entirely true, still, I've realized that there are so many vile pieces of flesh flaunting around with Masters (some even PhD's) that it is sometimes difficult to imagine how they even crossed their undergrad. This analogy was actually supposed to point to a larger fallacy today. The fact that every Velu, Venkatachalam and Vincent seems to have opinions on a lot of things in life should actually be something to be happy about, especially in this increasingly selfish world, where people seldom bother to have opinions/care about extraneous occurrences in the world, as long as they aren't directly affected. The tragedy is - how much of a strong opinion such imbecile creatures (me included) dare to form, with the limited knowledge they have. There is too much of too strong opinion about too many things in the world today, all with too little knowledge. I have personally felt this so many times - how strong I hold onto something without knowing enough. So much so that now, I have to consciously try to think about something from multiple perspectives before retaining/changing the initial opinion (which anyhow forms impulsively :P). I thought there was a problem with me, but the more I saw of the world and the more I interacted with people, I realized I was a trifle blessed. Why? Not that I am superior to them in being more knowledgeable - but in that not only do people not realize they have a strong opinion about something, they also stand farther away from knowing how little they know about whatever it is they are so strongly wrongly opinionated about. Why I stress so much on knowing that we have a strong opinion on something is because - the realization that we have a strong opinion about something is the first step in us trying to subject that opinion to a rigorous proof analysis. Why? A strong opinion should exist if and only if it is correct.
(Kind Note: This is applicable to only that minority which is interested in and desires to have the correct opinion about anything. The world, in case you didn't know, abounds with people who don't care about whether their opinion is actually correct or not...just that others think their opinion is correct). And unless we critically, impartially analyze the topic of our opinion from all sides, there is no way we can be sure of our opinion being correct. And you know what - even after such intense analysis, our opinion can fail spectacularly (Refer this).
There is also another botheration - a lot of people have baseless opinions about things which are somehow, inexplicably, right. Yes, it's unfortunate and it just shouldn't be, but it is. And these people have such a (high) opinion of themselves that...forget it(It might also be the case where we think the opinion is 'baseless' or its premise is too flimsy, but the person concerned actually knows more...in this case, it's perfectly okay). But sadly, these people also do exist - and logical human beings (like us) will find it most difficult with such people.
Now a closely related thing which I mentioned earlier - the half-full thing.
Explained below...
I don't believe in the caste-based discriminations so shittily screwed up by us Brahmins a few hundred years ago. But I believe the Varna system of the Vedic Age was great in the sense that - people were complete in whoever they were and whatever they did. Now I'm not saying that is how the world should be today. Just an example to reiterate my point of being Raymond (or Lisa Raymond). Me again - I am nowhere near how good a programmer I want to be, but apparently, I am still employable (I probably have other attributes to compensate, but I wonder how my employers know about all that yet). Ok, but I hope you see where I'm coming to. Mayawati is the head of one of the largest political parties in India. Deve Gowda was the Prime Minister of India. Shucks, George Bush was a President for two terms! (Though I didn't want to say it, I cannot but refrain from citing the name of one Ajit Agarkar's presence in the Indian cricket team). Oh, and I almost forgot...Barkha Dutt is a "successful" journalist. So do all these examples mean the world is wrong? Possibly, but we have to live with it. And...Sadly, deal with the Mayawatis, Deve Gowdas, Barkha Dutts, Agarkars and Bushes of today. Even in people's careers, it is possible to OB-adichufy and succeed. I am not saying this did not exist in the Vedic Age, but it did so to a much much lesser extent. So much so that today, this incompleteness seems to be the hallmark of the contemporary human being. We lack in so many aspects, and yet, we compulsively have this air of knowledge/achievement about us, whoever we may be.
It is in the context of such a world that singles like me are looking to mingle. (Remember, this post is about me and arranged marriage?). In effect, I am definitely not claiming that 99% of the populace is a clone of one of the afore-mentioned characters. The bigger tragedy is this: almost 75% of the populace is made up of specimens that abet and encourage such characters - a bigger crime. It's almost equivalent to having negative knowledge (Sub zero IQ?). Nah, just kidding. But seriously, in this kind of world, there is so much for people to know about others. And if people are supposed to enter into this holy alliance called matrimony, it is imperative for each to know about both...completely (That is when you will have a Raymond "suiting"). Alas, in the good old days...I have no idea how things were so easy. Whether people were that much less opinionated or that much more knowledgeable or that much more correct, I don't know...but most of the arranged marriages worked. Conservative though I am, it is for this reason that I think love marriage clicks, today. But then, it's a vicious circle. When the same jnaana soonyams fall in love, they also royally screw up marriage. How? For one, they don't know themselves, first. In fact, point zero-they don't know that they need to know themselves first. And obviously, they don't know their spouse. What more do you need? Psst...there are even characters which you will be shocked to know can exist. And the worst part - they appear as normal as you and me (reminds me of Kamal's awesome dialogue in Anbe Sivam - "Indha theeviravaadhigal ellam neenga nanaikkara maadhiri enna maadhiri (bayangarama) irukka maattanga. Romba azhaga iruppaanga...") :P.
So much for appearances. Here's more...
I have another confession to make. Despite my aspirations of spirituality, I am still appreciative of a woman's looks. Ok, so I might not be a very good analyst of feminine curves, but I at least am capable of getting hooked by a girl's face. And smitten...Yes, you guessed it - though I have started thinking on the lines of not being averse to a single life, if I marry, I still need at least a half-beautiful girl for my wife. Ok, I'm willing to settle for someone who is as good looking a girl as I am, as a guy (assuming, optimistically, that I'm not ugly), though I would definitely like for someone a level or two above me in the looks department (Another example of Man's Chronological Deterioration). I don't know if it's attempted justification of a bad quality, but I kind of have asked myself time and again - why good looks in the girl I am going to marry are an important consideration for me. Here is my attempted explanation -
First, I am a person who takes most things (in life) seriously. If and when I marry, I want to fall for my wife - hook, line and sinker. Now that doesn't mean I will never look at another woman for the rest of my life (even if neither is my wife, I will always follow Tamanna and Trisha all my life). Jokes apart, yes...there might be the Aishwarya Rai's and the Meenakshi Seshadri's who are simply stunning, but such ethereal beauties have never been in my consideration, and never will they be (aaahhh...I did put a full-stop somewhere). So then, there might be other good looking girls too, but if my wife is somewhat comparable, I will have no necessity to cast a second glance over these other girls. Do I lack self control? No. You see, I should not have to control myself to not 'look' at another woman. I am sure, after marriage, I will never "look" at another woman, but I don't want to do this out of my effort, rather, it should be natural. Effectively,

• If I decide not to marry - then it definitely means I've gone up by one spiritual level (no offence intended to marriage :D), so no issues here.
  
• If I settle for a not-exactly good looking wife, it means I have grown to the level of not admiring physical beauty. That would mean I have acquired enough jnaanam/knowledge to practise it. Now if that's the case, it again means I've gained a spiritual level ...which means I wouldn't have married in the first case. :P
  

I hold a reasonably decent opinion of myself, though I've got a long way to go. Still, I don't want to think of myself as someone capable of saying no to a girl based on her looks. After all, seeing a girl, liking her and then thinking about marriage is so much more convenient and easy compared to thinking about marriage, then seeing a girl, and finally, liking her. I am trying to adopt this "looks are not important" principle which tons of bloody hypocrites preach, but I feel I will be practising precisely that, if I take looks also as a consideration for finding my Ms.Right. You see, when I see a girl, like her looks and accept her, I do it knowing fully well that she is not going to look the same 10 years down the line. Obviously, for a character like me, looks might count for a few years not more...(ya, but they will count :P). I don't know if I am capable of saying no to a girl because of her looks, but I don't want even to place myself in such a situation.
I have not the heart to hurt someone else, and for all talk of modernism and stuff, rejected/getting rejected in marriage (for whatever reason) is still considered something of an insult in Tam Brahm communities (has it changed? Someone tell me). The two families in question will never be the same to each other (in case they know each other before), in all likelihood. Ya of course, I would, happily, point out someone's failings where they are so obviously and grotesquely wrong, but even then, I have realized nobody but God (ok...parents, probably close friends) has the right to do that. Well, at least, I don't want that right. Rather, I don't deserve that right...yet. Even with the right, I'd think the last place to do it would be when pon-paathufying or after.
Whether I like it or not, I have to admit that I am a picky person. Rules Ramanujam, some friends call me. Mambalam mama to some others. Many have said that I think a lot, too...more than is acceptable/comfortable for peaceful (co-)existence, apparently. This being the case, finding a corresponding girl becomes that much more difficult, doesn't it?
For some reason, I am not really worried about girls rejecting me, probably because I have never sought the acceptance of "girls" specifically (that's not to say I didn't enjoy any feminine following I might have had ;-).. I'm perfectly ok with it, seriously (unless, of course, it's my Ms.Right who is rejecting me...and even then, I'd feel bad only about not being able to get her, and not that she rejected me). But I really really don't want to be in a situation where I cannot but say No to a girl, obviously, in the best of both our interests, for whatever reason...looks, character, how she thinks, what she wears, her attitude, her *opinion*.
All this while, I've been talking only about looks. That's because, of all that (I think) I expect in my to-be-wife, looks are the easiest to see/know and decide. I have a reputation of being an excellent judge of people (intended sarcasm), hence, a girl's looks are probably one of the few things I (probably) wouldn't screw up in deciding/judging. But since "looks" is just one among a number of other necessary (but by no means, sufficient) conditions, and if I had to list out even one of the other attributes/expectations from my prospective girl, I'd probably be writing a post (at least) twice the size of this one, I have no idea if I am capable of taking a decision which would, potentially, put not only my life in jeopardy, but her's as well as both our parents'.
And for all these reasons, I shudder to think of arranged marriage, for me.

Update:

• Ironically, the whole thing I wrote about people and opinions is...but my opinion. ;-)
• What if I get a girl who satisfies all my other "requirements" but is not sufficiently good-looking?
  "Adhigama aasai padra aambalayum adhigama kova padara pombalayum nallaa vazhndadha sarithramae illa" :P

Update 2:
I realize that if even 75% of married couples today had thought this much (before marrying) about self-realization, opinions, expectations, etc., then we'd have 80% of the population remaining unmarried.
Explanation - 75% of married couples includes only those currently married. There is always an already-single population. I'm assuming none of the 75% would marry, add to it another 5% who are anyway going to remain single, and we have 80% spinsters/bachelors.
Mathematical Realization based on Update 2 - x% of married couples constitutes much less than x% of the population. Obvious, yet insightful.

To Shoot Oneself in the Foot

This phrase has intrigued me for quite some time. Though, initially, it was quite obvious in its meaning - to act against one's own interest or to foolishly harm one's own cause...effectively a person screwing himself/herself. However, there was something not right...a kind of lingering "this-doesn't-feel-entirely-right" feel to what the phrase meant. My computer science oriented brain somehow tried hard to decipher the logic behind the statement and I have a case to argue against this phrase referring to what it currently does.
Consider this - if you are going to shoot yourself in your foot, it obviously means that the initial premise is of you having a gun at hand. Fine. The next thing we need to consider is that we are not attempting to commit suicide, because if we were, we wouldn't be shooting ourselves in our foot. Now we know the world is not short of dumb people, and in the rare case that someone tried to commit suicide by shooting {him/her}self in the foot, they at least didn't die, which is a positive*.
There is another possibility - of you having accidentally shot yourself. In this case, we can safely assume that having a gun at hand, there was always the possibility of it going off. So, even though a person with no gunshot wound on his body is supposed to be better off than someone with his foot shot, we will remove the comfort of no gunshot wound because of the former reasoning. Now that we have reconciled to the fact that there is a high possibility of us having a gunshot wound (if we have a gun in hand), I really cannot think of many better places than the leg for taking the shot. I mean, your head is a bad place for you to get shot...ditto for your heart or abdomen. Getting shot in the face will definitely be fatal - either to your life or your appearance, so it's a no-no there. The stomach too, I am told, is not a very convenient place. That leaves us with the arms and legs, broadly speaking. Since (I think) we use our arms, on an average, for more duration and more purposes than our legs, getting shot in the arms is not a better option. Which leaves us with the legs. Now, if you consider the legs, it is highly unlikely for us to shoot ourselves in our thighs because of the ergonomics of the gun in our hand. A gunshot wound in the knee is bound to have relatively serious medical implications, hence that too, is ruled out. Which effectively means we have just the foot. And hey, it isn't that bad to limp and walk. On the contrary, we might get a couple of compassionate glances from the other sex - a guy limping might be mistaken for a war hero (for some reason, most war heroes in cinema limp), a girl limping will always be offered ready help (remember Vivek's gospel in Minnale about a girl falling down and guys rushing to help?).
Hence, I safely conclude that getting shot in the foot is actually not that bad a thing to happen.
So, the next time you had a close shave with something because of something you did, you'll know you just shot yourself in the foot.

*Note: The underlying assumption in this article is that death is bad. If you don't believe in that, I suggest you read some of my other posts. Ah well, you've read this one anyway.

Quasi-Philosophical Musings

When we are crippled, we use the crutch to support us. With the crutch's support, we slowly regain our balance and strength to walk. Then, once we are fully fit and don't need the crutch any more, we throw it away.
Are we being ungrateful to the crutch in not using it any more? Or are we repaying the crutch back in kind by fulfilling the very purpose of the crutch in enabling us to walk straight and properly?

PS: I was prompted to write this bit after reading about some people suggesting that the BJP should dissociate itself from the RSS, though the analogy is not entirely relevant.