Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Untitled (You may suggest one.)

Perhaps I shouldn't have concerned too much. Perhaps I should respond to all unpleasant sight by just a smile, and stay happy because it actually favors us. No criticism, no so called "harsh comments" or "inappropriate action". Perhaps I shouldn't have placed my perspective of views in equal to those, which in turn would easily spark some misunderstandings. Perhaps I should be one of those saying: "Aiya, like that one la, why care so much?" Or perhaps I should just remain silent, be your obedient students and get focused in term of academic attention, score a string of As in examination, or try to secure the top in the world award to appease them before flying to India, then leave here and be happy ever after.

But I don't. To refrain myself from the urges to share something neglecting its fact as either positive or negative has been something more difficult than to keep my mouth shut. Some people don't understand the fascinating and intriguing part we could indulge ourselves in during arguing against a statement or topic by contributing constructive thoughts, and have a great assimilation of others' thoughts, so that things can eventually end up obtaining a valuable outcome. Curiosity and sense of accomplishment are playing a main role. People tend to lost the interest concerned in the sense that he doesn't prefer to share his very personal piece of two cents could be a result of flawed environment he was being brought up. For example, the repeating cliche during constructing an essay without really trying to inject some fresh ideas whenever possible, could curb his sharing ability.

When something has been done with a large margin of improvement, I speak. When I saw something flawed or wrong, I speak. Before I speak, I do something which most of the people don't, that is I reflect on whether I'm trying to contribute to, or encourage the flawed or to the wrong. At the same time, we can't dispute the fact if we don't stay in the flawed, we are the ones who face disadvantages. It can be a hard time to balance everything during this stage, but this is what prepares us to have equipped all of the traits needed in order to push ourselves to a further level of aptitude in the future.

We can choose to show indifference towards the flawed, because of "it is none of my business, as long as I happy, it doesn't matter." or "I can't do much to change that, don't let myself to get into trouble, so just let it be." Here is a question to think: Are we entitled to do so? And here comes a good lesson to learn - to be able to achieve the goal with minimum arousal of less significant circumstances which might in turn lead to a complication that may defeat the purpose of the initial intention. Expect the unexpected and accept the unacceptable. Which one do you choose?

Saturday, April 3, 2010

What's wrong? Can't you sense it?

Here is the previous post of the similar topic.

Forwarded emails urge me to voice out my opinion here again. Can we call the reaction of someone saying "Oh, that's cruel, we shouldn't do that!" while reading emails spreading news about killing of animals on the verge to extinct as human conscience? I have been trying to get involved in arguments such as humans have no right to deprive animals of their life regardless of their status or species. Whenever I read the typical comments cursing those inhumane sin done by either illegal butcher or hunter, especially on Facebook, I couldn't help myself to have my two cents pointed out in order to further scrutinize, review and try to bring an ironical sense into this issue.

For example, there was a documentary video showing seals' misfortune, suffering from the peeling of their skin by human in order to meet the high demand of raw material in leather industry. As expected, all the response towards this revealed sin could be generalised as rantings, condemnation and criticism accompanied by some cursing, or some of them might not even have the courage to continue watching because it was just too evil. For a greater understanding, I tried to make a simple comparison with the killing of poultry so that we could equate the cruelty of human act. Actually when we are taking meat from chicken and beef, we do contribute in this too.

Then, people started to refute my argument, stating that there is an obvious difference due to the reason torture and killing are not the same, and the sin of killing is definitely lower than the sin of torturing. They solidified their arguments Humans were created by god to be a "caliphate" on this earth and permitted to take advantage of all the natural resources there, but not to torture fellow creatures.

I have to admit the idea I advocate to is greatly influenced by teaching in Dharma talk. If you are not familiar with that, I would like to tell you that killing is prohibited, even killing an ant. And here comes the contact between religious views.

I do agree they are different above the surface, and I am trying to find an alternative perspective from the identity they share. I don't have the intention to defy any of the religious views but it is just intriguing for me to have a deeper insight towards this. Since both of them are sins and people don't wish to conduct any sinful practice, and logically and rationally people would say: "No, I don't want it to be like this." or "It is so wrong, we shouldn't do these." We would have criticized sinful people using different extent of phrases based on ascending "degree of sin". But for me, it brings contradiction when people would actually consider these as antonym, humane and inhumane.

If you read carefully, my point is very simple, that is "do not feel sorry or guilty for the animals when you are reading similar email or whatsoever, if you are dining in meat, such as KFC, perhaps?

There is another fascinating fact I would like to share. Whenever we flipped through the newspapers, bad news such as murdering and kidnapping would not fail to meet our eyes. Have you ever noticed that we have our own scale on judging the degree of sin conducted by those criminals? Sometime the scale would go imbalanced. For instance, when a little adorable girl was kidnapped, the newspapers would have some argh-she-is-so-cute photos gazetted to draw the attention of the public. Same analogy, people would look at the photo and say "where the hell do those kidnappers grow their conscience? How can you be so harsh to such a cute little girl?" How if miserably the victim doesn't have an attractive look? There is no an one hundred and eighty degree of change by public response, of course, but you can actually notice the great difference.

Things are artificial, and fake as well.
Related Posts with Thumbnails