The War Within - Between Good and Evil by Bheemeswara Challa (e book reader online .txt) đ
Excerpt from the book:
The human has always prided himself as an exceptional âmoral speciesâ but has always been haunted by two questions: âWhy am I not good when I want to be; âwhy do I do bad when I donât want toâ. Â This is at the heart of what scriptures and sages have long alluded to as the eternal internal struggle-between good and evil - that wages in the human consciousness.
Read free book «The War Within - Between Good and Evil by Bheemeswara Challa (e book reader online .txt) đ» - read online or download for free at americanlibrarybooks.com
Download in Format:
- Author: Bheemeswara Challa
Read book online «The War Within - Between Good and Evil by Bheemeswara Challa (e book reader online .txt) đ». Author - Bheemeswara Challa
contributor to the global burden of disease and injury by
The War WithinâBetween Good and Evil
514
2020.36 According to the Commission for Road Safety, fatalities on the road are
estimated to go up to 19 million from the current level.
The core of the problem is that man chases the mirages of permanence
and perfection, which are the attributes of the divine. What Bernard Shaw said
about love applies to all life: perfect love is possible only via correspondence.
Death is the most frequently happening âhappeningâ in the world. In the year
2012, an estimated 56 million such âhappeningsâ happened. But we behave as
if it is someone elseâs âhappeningâ, another personâs sorrow. It has been said that
âthe classical manâs worst fear was inglorious death; the modern manâs worst fear
is just deathâ.37 The paths towards that end have to be four-fold. One is to freeze
the status quo: to simply go on âlivingâ in this body and on this earth. Two, to
ârise again and/or âliveâ in different bodies with some sort of continuity like a
soul, atman, spirit etc., which is the essence of religious âimmortalityâ. Three,
to live forever through some sort of âlegacyâ: biological, through children and
blood-ties, cultural, like art, literature, and so on. The fourth is a modification
or âimprovementâ over the first, in fact of all the above, which is what science is
trying to do. It has convinced itself that bridging the gap between life and death
is the only true measure of success; everything else is a detail. It is to make âdeathâ
not final but temporary, restore the dead to life after a period of deep slumber
through technologies like cryonics.38 The curious question is: If someone who
has been âdeadâ for a century or two comes to âlifeâ, what kind of person will he
be? Will he carry and retain all his characteristics, say stammering or alcoholism,
or say spouse-bashing? Or will he be a different personality? If he is âdifferentâ,
how can he be the same person? And if he is the âsameâ, mentally, psychologically,
and habitually, then what is the point? For the whole idea of immortality is to
overcome the state âin which they strive to devour each otherâ, to borrow the
words of the 19th-century thinker Nikolai Fyodorov, or overcome their âstate
of cannibalismâ. If human consciousness remains frozen along with the body,
then any such âimmortalityâ would be the grossest monstrosity. We want to give
âdeathâ to death and substantially shrink old age. Woody Allen simplified how we
want to deal with death: âI donât want to achieve immortality through my work;
I want to achieve immortality through not dying. I donât want to live in the
hearts of my countrymen; I want to live in my apartmentâ. As of now people do
die in abodes and âapartmentsâ, and dying still means a physical process. We live
From Death to Immortality
515
and die in the âworld of mortalityâ, live in the world of physical reality to which
the laws of âIncreasing Entropyâ apply, and a world which ends at the moment
of death. When that âmomentâ arrives, only the good we do helps. In Engaging
in Bodhisattva Behavior, a Tibetan Buddhist scholar writes, âSo, for the sake of
this impermanent life, Iâve caused so much negative karmic force to build upâŠ
When seized by the messengers of the Lord of Death, What help are relatives?
What help are friends? Only my positive karmic force will provide me a safe
direction thenâ.39
While seeking and searching for immortality to the species, what modern
man has done is to turn âdeathâ itself into the ultimate weapon against another
man. âKillingâ, in essence, induced or enforced âdeliberate deathâ, is fast becoming
a preferred choice for dispute settlement, a fevered finale to personal frustrations
and inadequacies in the human world. What we forget is that, as Bernard Rieux
says, âthe order of the world is shaped by deathâ. For some kind of âkillingâ takes
place all the time, in nature, inside our own bodies. Doctors âkillâ pathogens,
bacteria, and viruses to cure a disease. We terminate and exterminate âlifeâ in our
life every day in the guise of self-preservation, but actually for supremacy. We
can âkillâ without actually killing; and it does not have to be one lethal blow. We
can âkillâ with a withering glance, a curt dismissal, a cutting word, even brusque
body-language; each time anything makes us âfeel smallâ, makes us say âI wish I
were deadâ, something does âdieâ inside. We can âkillâ, not necessarily by âtaking
a lifeâ, but by taking away oneâs dignity and self-respect. And we can âdieâ drip
by drip, until actual âkillingâ, or death in any other way, becomes a breather. All
âkillingâ is of course not the same. Killing a mosquito is not the same as killing
a man; although the mosquito might think otherwise. It might think, âI am
just acting according to my nature and I will die if I donâtâ. Man has no such
alibi. The human is the only one responsible for unnecessary, unwarranted, and
unnatural killing in nature, particularly in relation to other species. But man
alone is capable of turning âkillingâ into an act of mercy, like in euthanasia. Man
alone also kills for profit, pleasure, and for fun and for control. Other animals
more routinely kill, but often no more than needed for filling their stomachs.
After his famous âanaconda and earlâ experiment, Mark Twain said, âThe fact
stood proven that the difference between an earl and an anaconda is that the
earl is cruel and the anaconda isnât; and that the earl wantonly destroys what
The War WithinâBetween Good and Evil
516
he has no use for, but the anaconda doesnât. This seemed to suggest that the
anaconda was not descended from the earl. It also seemed to suggest that the earl
was descended from the anaconda, and had lost a good deal in the transitionâ.
Indeed, there are few, if any, causes or reasons, for which man does not kill
anyone who is deemed an obstacle or inconvenience, not even his own children
or parents. It is the âcircumstanceâ, the context, which determines, to a large
extent, any actâs moral standing. But âcircumstanceâ is so circumscribed, so elastic
that, without right intent, it can become a cover. And in the English language,
at least, ironically, as a kind of Freudian slip, âkillingâ also means a âgreat successâ;
we say âwe made a killingâ when we hit the jackpot.
We are âkillersâ in an other way. We bemoan how short-lived humans are but
what we do is to âkillâ that precious time in worthless viewing and doing. The real
danger, the terrifying prospect is that while for much of human history âsurvivalâ
was the default mode in human cognition, what neuroscience calls default mode
network, âdeathâ seems to be fast replacing it. One of many paradoxes that dot
the modern human mindset is that despite his growing self-love and selfishness,
his survival instinct is faltering, like to some extent the maternal instinct.
Perhaps it is the price we are paying for crossing the âLakshmana rekhaâ, or the
forbidden line, in our ceaseless endeavor to become âimmortalâ and to enhance
our brain-led âintelligenceâ, more particularly by merging or integrating human
and machine intelligence. What Adam Smith said about division of labor in a
mechanized factory, in which most workers perform âsimple operationsâ, applies
even more to our increasing reliance on machine intelligence; that it would make
workers âas stupid and ignorant as possible for a human creature to beâ.40 In the
case of division of labor, it is because they lose the âhabit of exertionâ; in regard
to excessive reliance on machines to do much of our work, it will be because
much of our related faculties atrophy. If we believe that the earth is a living
organism, as the Gaia hypothesis posits, and that nature has some immutable
laws that govern and keep harmony in the cosmos, then it could be that in so
doing, human âintelligenceâ has become an intolerable threat to nature. In the
natural world, âintelligenceâ above that which is necessary but not necessarily
sufficient for sheer survival is programmed to extinguish itself. âBeing too cleverâ
is too much of a peril to the exquisite balance in the world. What could be more
ironic that a species supposedly acquiring the know-how to cure the âdisease
From Death to Immortality
517
of deathâ is turning death into a default-mode of that very âintelligenceâ. Our
âintelligenceâ, the one which we prize most, the one with which we differentiate
and discriminate and look down upon some and venerate some others, the one
with which to conquer the stars and make man an immortal superman, is the
issue, the problem and obstacle. It is this intelligence that has paved the way for
the much-talked about âSixth Extinctionâ, for turning the human into the most
feared life-form on earth and into what Edward Wilson called, an âenvironmental
abnormalityâ. Natureâs answer is what we ourselves are doing with our brain.
While we are trying to enhance its power and reach, nature is âfixingâ it so that
every time we face a âproblemâ, an unwelcome or irksome or painful situation, we
turn to self-extinction as a way of solving it, if not salvation.
Pandemics of Suicide and Homicide, and the âWarâ
Whatever are the contributory causes, the reality is that it is leading a growing
number of people to become, in the words of Barbara Gowdy, âenraptured by
the idea of no longer existingâ.41 At a time when many also believe, as Sartre said,
that âexistence precedes essenceâ, that good living is more important than good
life, such an âentrapmentâ is a telling testament to how adrift, anchorless, and
empty human life has come to be. In the phenomenal world, which is the world
as it appears to be, mystery and misery coexist: the mystery of âlifeâ and the
misery of living. The question that we have never been able to answer is: Are we
for ârealâ? Or are we an âactâ? The tension between the two has always held sway
over manâs mind, but some kind of delicate dĂ©tente has prevailed for much of
human history. However, that has virtually come apart in modern times, leading
to an almost irresistible cupio dissolvi, a âdesire to be dissolvedâ, a desire to go
âanywhere outside this worldâ. In the final reckoning, it is âdesireâ that is destiny.
The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad eloquently cautions: âYou are what your deep,
driving desire is. As your desire is, so is your will. As your will is, so is your deed.
As your deed is, so is your destinyâ. If âdissolutionâ is our collective desire, so will
it be. Desire becomes, after a length of time, involuntary and indistinguishable
from thought and belief. What we believe we will become, we become. It is
possible that, although death is not a matter of perception but physical, we all
die, because for over a million years we made up our minds that we all die,
The War WithinâBetween Good and Evil
518
and therefore we die, actually die. That âbelief â or that âthoughtâ is not only
mental; it is embedded in every cell in our body and at the deepest layers of
our consciousness. That is what those living in the Immortality Commune of
Gavdos, a tiny island off the coast of Greece, believed in. The causal question is:
Why is the contemporary human, who thinks he has mastered nature and who
now wants to master mortality itself, thus far the sole sanctuary of âgods,â so
disillusioned, distraught, discontented, and in such despair about his lot, and in
such a state of restless rebellion against the present? At this pivotal and perilous
point in human evolution and history, the truth of the matter is that whatever
constitutes the human essence, whether we are a mere mortal body or an infinite
immortal soul, modern man is battling several crippling contradictionsâselfcenteredness
and self-destruction, narcissism and nihilism, fear of âimminent
implosionâ, and aspiration for a âgod-likeâ existence, ugly affluence, and abysmal
poverty. And this battle or âwarâ is taking a heavy toll on the human psyche,
personality, and inner harmony.
What we witness in the world outside by way of restlessness, angst,
insensitivity, intolerance, meanness, and senseless assault on nature, are the byproducts
of this war. Even without our being fully conscious, the silent pandemics
of suicide and homicide are sweeping across the globe, and while the thresholds
of restraint become lower with every passing day, the triggers are also getting
more and more trivial.42 It is contemporary, but foreseen long ago. In fact, one of
the characteristics of the current Kali Yuga, as it was written in Hindu epics and
scriptures, is that âpeople will have thoughts of murder for no justification, and
they will see nothing wrong with that mindset. Family murders will also occur.
People will see
The War WithinâBetween Good and Evil
514
2020.36 According to the Commission for Road Safety, fatalities on the road are
estimated to go up to 19 million from the current level.
The core of the problem is that man chases the mirages of permanence
and perfection, which are the attributes of the divine. What Bernard Shaw said
about love applies to all life: perfect love is possible only via correspondence.
Death is the most frequently happening âhappeningâ in the world. In the year
2012, an estimated 56 million such âhappeningsâ happened. But we behave as
if it is someone elseâs âhappeningâ, another personâs sorrow. It has been said that
âthe classical manâs worst fear was inglorious death; the modern manâs worst fear
is just deathâ.37 The paths towards that end have to be four-fold. One is to freeze
the status quo: to simply go on âlivingâ in this body and on this earth. Two, to
ârise again and/or âliveâ in different bodies with some sort of continuity like a
soul, atman, spirit etc., which is the essence of religious âimmortalityâ. Three,
to live forever through some sort of âlegacyâ: biological, through children and
blood-ties, cultural, like art, literature, and so on. The fourth is a modification
or âimprovementâ over the first, in fact of all the above, which is what science is
trying to do. It has convinced itself that bridging the gap between life and death
is the only true measure of success; everything else is a detail. It is to make âdeathâ
not final but temporary, restore the dead to life after a period of deep slumber
through technologies like cryonics.38 The curious question is: If someone who
has been âdeadâ for a century or two comes to âlifeâ, what kind of person will he
be? Will he carry and retain all his characteristics, say stammering or alcoholism,
or say spouse-bashing? Or will he be a different personality? If he is âdifferentâ,
how can he be the same person? And if he is the âsameâ, mentally, psychologically,
and habitually, then what is the point? For the whole idea of immortality is to
overcome the state âin which they strive to devour each otherâ, to borrow the
words of the 19th-century thinker Nikolai Fyodorov, or overcome their âstate
of cannibalismâ. If human consciousness remains frozen along with the body,
then any such âimmortalityâ would be the grossest monstrosity. We want to give
âdeathâ to death and substantially shrink old age. Woody Allen simplified how we
want to deal with death: âI donât want to achieve immortality through my work;
I want to achieve immortality through not dying. I donât want to live in the
hearts of my countrymen; I want to live in my apartmentâ. As of now people do
die in abodes and âapartmentsâ, and dying still means a physical process. We live
From Death to Immortality
515
and die in the âworld of mortalityâ, live in the world of physical reality to which
the laws of âIncreasing Entropyâ apply, and a world which ends at the moment
of death. When that âmomentâ arrives, only the good we do helps. In Engaging
in Bodhisattva Behavior, a Tibetan Buddhist scholar writes, âSo, for the sake of
this impermanent life, Iâve caused so much negative karmic force to build upâŠ
When seized by the messengers of the Lord of Death, What help are relatives?
What help are friends? Only my positive karmic force will provide me a safe
direction thenâ.39
While seeking and searching for immortality to the species, what modern
man has done is to turn âdeathâ itself into the ultimate weapon against another
man. âKillingâ, in essence, induced or enforced âdeliberate deathâ, is fast becoming
a preferred choice for dispute settlement, a fevered finale to personal frustrations
and inadequacies in the human world. What we forget is that, as Bernard Rieux
says, âthe order of the world is shaped by deathâ. For some kind of âkillingâ takes
place all the time, in nature, inside our own bodies. Doctors âkillâ pathogens,
bacteria, and viruses to cure a disease. We terminate and exterminate âlifeâ in our
life every day in the guise of self-preservation, but actually for supremacy. We
can âkillâ without actually killing; and it does not have to be one lethal blow. We
can âkillâ with a withering glance, a curt dismissal, a cutting word, even brusque
body-language; each time anything makes us âfeel smallâ, makes us say âI wish I
were deadâ, something does âdieâ inside. We can âkillâ, not necessarily by âtaking
a lifeâ, but by taking away oneâs dignity and self-respect. And we can âdieâ drip
by drip, until actual âkillingâ, or death in any other way, becomes a breather. All
âkillingâ is of course not the same. Killing a mosquito is not the same as killing
a man; although the mosquito might think otherwise. It might think, âI am
just acting according to my nature and I will die if I donâtâ. Man has no such
alibi. The human is the only one responsible for unnecessary, unwarranted, and
unnatural killing in nature, particularly in relation to other species. But man
alone is capable of turning âkillingâ into an act of mercy, like in euthanasia. Man
alone also kills for profit, pleasure, and for fun and for control. Other animals
more routinely kill, but often no more than needed for filling their stomachs.
After his famous âanaconda and earlâ experiment, Mark Twain said, âThe fact
stood proven that the difference between an earl and an anaconda is that the
earl is cruel and the anaconda isnât; and that the earl wantonly destroys what
The War WithinâBetween Good and Evil
516
he has no use for, but the anaconda doesnât. This seemed to suggest that the
anaconda was not descended from the earl. It also seemed to suggest that the earl
was descended from the anaconda, and had lost a good deal in the transitionâ.
Indeed, there are few, if any, causes or reasons, for which man does not kill
anyone who is deemed an obstacle or inconvenience, not even his own children
or parents. It is the âcircumstanceâ, the context, which determines, to a large
extent, any actâs moral standing. But âcircumstanceâ is so circumscribed, so elastic
that, without right intent, it can become a cover. And in the English language,
at least, ironically, as a kind of Freudian slip, âkillingâ also means a âgreat successâ;
we say âwe made a killingâ when we hit the jackpot.
We are âkillersâ in an other way. We bemoan how short-lived humans are but
what we do is to âkillâ that precious time in worthless viewing and doing. The real
danger, the terrifying prospect is that while for much of human history âsurvivalâ
was the default mode in human cognition, what neuroscience calls default mode
network, âdeathâ seems to be fast replacing it. One of many paradoxes that dot
the modern human mindset is that despite his growing self-love and selfishness,
his survival instinct is faltering, like to some extent the maternal instinct.
Perhaps it is the price we are paying for crossing the âLakshmana rekhaâ, or the
forbidden line, in our ceaseless endeavor to become âimmortalâ and to enhance
our brain-led âintelligenceâ, more particularly by merging or integrating human
and machine intelligence. What Adam Smith said about division of labor in a
mechanized factory, in which most workers perform âsimple operationsâ, applies
even more to our increasing reliance on machine intelligence; that it would make
workers âas stupid and ignorant as possible for a human creature to beâ.40 In the
case of division of labor, it is because they lose the âhabit of exertionâ; in regard
to excessive reliance on machines to do much of our work, it will be because
much of our related faculties atrophy. If we believe that the earth is a living
organism, as the Gaia hypothesis posits, and that nature has some immutable
laws that govern and keep harmony in the cosmos, then it could be that in so
doing, human âintelligenceâ has become an intolerable threat to nature. In the
natural world, âintelligenceâ above that which is necessary but not necessarily
sufficient for sheer survival is programmed to extinguish itself. âBeing too cleverâ
is too much of a peril to the exquisite balance in the world. What could be more
ironic that a species supposedly acquiring the know-how to cure the âdisease
From Death to Immortality
517
of deathâ is turning death into a default-mode of that very âintelligenceâ. Our
âintelligenceâ, the one which we prize most, the one with which we differentiate
and discriminate and look down upon some and venerate some others, the one
with which to conquer the stars and make man an immortal superman, is the
issue, the problem and obstacle. It is this intelligence that has paved the way for
the much-talked about âSixth Extinctionâ, for turning the human into the most
feared life-form on earth and into what Edward Wilson called, an âenvironmental
abnormalityâ. Natureâs answer is what we ourselves are doing with our brain.
While we are trying to enhance its power and reach, nature is âfixingâ it so that
every time we face a âproblemâ, an unwelcome or irksome or painful situation, we
turn to self-extinction as a way of solving it, if not salvation.
Pandemics of Suicide and Homicide, and the âWarâ
Whatever are the contributory causes, the reality is that it is leading a growing
number of people to become, in the words of Barbara Gowdy, âenraptured by
the idea of no longer existingâ.41 At a time when many also believe, as Sartre said,
that âexistence precedes essenceâ, that good living is more important than good
life, such an âentrapmentâ is a telling testament to how adrift, anchorless, and
empty human life has come to be. In the phenomenal world, which is the world
as it appears to be, mystery and misery coexist: the mystery of âlifeâ and the
misery of living. The question that we have never been able to answer is: Are we
for ârealâ? Or are we an âactâ? The tension between the two has always held sway
over manâs mind, but some kind of delicate dĂ©tente has prevailed for much of
human history. However, that has virtually come apart in modern times, leading
to an almost irresistible cupio dissolvi, a âdesire to be dissolvedâ, a desire to go
âanywhere outside this worldâ. In the final reckoning, it is âdesireâ that is destiny.
The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad eloquently cautions: âYou are what your deep,
driving desire is. As your desire is, so is your will. As your will is, so is your deed.
As your deed is, so is your destinyâ. If âdissolutionâ is our collective desire, so will
it be. Desire becomes, after a length of time, involuntary and indistinguishable
from thought and belief. What we believe we will become, we become. It is
possible that, although death is not a matter of perception but physical, we all
die, because for over a million years we made up our minds that we all die,
The War WithinâBetween Good and Evil
518
and therefore we die, actually die. That âbelief â or that âthoughtâ is not only
mental; it is embedded in every cell in our body and at the deepest layers of
our consciousness. That is what those living in the Immortality Commune of
Gavdos, a tiny island off the coast of Greece, believed in. The causal question is:
Why is the contemporary human, who thinks he has mastered nature and who
now wants to master mortality itself, thus far the sole sanctuary of âgods,â so
disillusioned, distraught, discontented, and in such despair about his lot, and in
such a state of restless rebellion against the present? At this pivotal and perilous
point in human evolution and history, the truth of the matter is that whatever
constitutes the human essence, whether we are a mere mortal body or an infinite
immortal soul, modern man is battling several crippling contradictionsâselfcenteredness
and self-destruction, narcissism and nihilism, fear of âimminent
implosionâ, and aspiration for a âgod-likeâ existence, ugly affluence, and abysmal
poverty. And this battle or âwarâ is taking a heavy toll on the human psyche,
personality, and inner harmony.
What we witness in the world outside by way of restlessness, angst,
insensitivity, intolerance, meanness, and senseless assault on nature, are the byproducts
of this war. Even without our being fully conscious, the silent pandemics
of suicide and homicide are sweeping across the globe, and while the thresholds
of restraint become lower with every passing day, the triggers are also getting
more and more trivial.42 It is contemporary, but foreseen long ago. In fact, one of
the characteristics of the current Kali Yuga, as it was written in Hindu epics and
scriptures, is that âpeople will have thoughts of murder for no justification, and
they will see nothing wrong with that mindset. Family murders will also occur.
People will see
Free e-book: «The War Within - Between Good and Evil by Bheemeswara Challa (e book reader online .txt) đ» - read online now on website american library books (americanlibrarybooks.com)
Similar e-books:
Comments (0)