Goodness is contagious

My friend presented a strategy and I adopted it. The strategy was appealing because it was good. I had been influenced by it. Goodness is contagious. How it is then that, evil is more influential? Because Goodness is noble and worthy of all praise, it is hard and hence the absence of good, that is evil, flourishes much easily than good.



We learn about machine and inventions that were made for good but are much easier to be used for something else. In life too, our weakness makes us do something else. Our weakness often even does not allow us to recognize goodness. How Goodness is then is contagious?



Because the greatest power of love can break barriers of the strongest forms of evil. Jesus taught the same. He said, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”. In that sense, the best way to humiliate your enemies is to love them.



Evil cannot be overcome by a greater evil as in a war which is a game of one-upmanship. But the clutches of evil is broken free by the overbearing of love. That is why in life, you do not have to try hard to change someone’s will. Try loving them for a change and they will humbly submit.



What will make them submit is their own goodness. But I wished to change them because they were evil in the first place? That was the whole point, wasn’t it? But they recognize your goodness when you love. No one can recognize goodness without himself being good. My goodness has established goodness in others. Goodness is contagious.

The best movie of all times

You were not made for comforts. You were made for greatness

-Pope Benedict XI



We all know how winning a football world cup feels like. We don’t have to be the players on the field. The team is received with roaring adulation and jubilation. In another scene, Imagine yourself walking out of an airport in a foreign country and scores of unfamiliar people take hold of you, greet you, cover you with the choicest bouquets exalting your books



Now imagine a bee line of a thousand people thronging for a movie ticket. You already have a pass by the virtue of sharing the same name as the title of the movie. You find that strange and yet oblige to watch it after their persuasion. When you enter, they are watching a show you are quite familiar with; the scenes feel as if they have been experienced. The melodies are also your favorite songs. The dialogues are what once you have expressed, delivered and dispensed. It all seems like you have met the characters and perhaps been the very protagonist of this movie. And then it dawns on you: they are screening the movie of your life. Today they are showing your life as a movie. And theatre is packed till the last seat.



Angels are trying to force themselves in from the windows. St. Peter and St. Paul are buying pop corn and finding their seats quickly much to the discomfort of those who are being hindered by the constant noise. St. Thomas Aquinas has bought along another secretary with a quill in case he finds some inspiration to pen down a psalm. St. Monica has come along with her son. Some of them are sitting on the floor lucky just to get in to see your life? What is so enigmatic in the movie?



They say this man lived a life of honor. He loved the church. He let his faith radiate into his life. He was a man who modeled his love for God on King David, of whom God said, “is a man after my own heart”. A man who found in others something to love and like Christ tried to wash each other's feet and bore his cross to enter his own Glory. A man who tried to share the good news with others.



They have all come from far away to see the flame he held within, a flame never to be extinguished until his last breath. They have come to watch that flame, incandescent, burn into a thousand different experiences on the screen today. Do our lives burn with such vigor that someday the same saints we pray to, would be making a beeline for the tickets to watch a movie, a movie of how you go about life with cheerfulness and a touch of grace?

The Classic Understanding of Emotion

Often many pop spirituality authors have this tendency of ranking emotions from a higher rating (such as Love) to a lower rating (such as jealousy). There are objective goods and truths in the world but an emotion per se is not objectively good or bad. Perhaps they are objectively good or bad but not to the extent that they can be good or bad in all cases. It is not in the nature of an emotion to be good or bad.



Love is good but if reason does not prevail, a fine thing as love can be corrupted by wishing to possess and impose on others, requirements, we would never wish on our selves. Our own insecurities make us pervert Love and consequently, motivate us to harrow and impose ourselves on them. What motivates our action is not Love that has ceased to exist but to be free of our insecurities and be free from our doubts and trust issues.



No one thing is good in the world, say love or patriotism. To cite another example, there are instances when a mother’s love for her own children or a man’s love for his own country (say Mamta Banerjee’s love for West Bengal which people alleged is clear in the rail budget) have to be suppressed or they will lead to unfairness towards other people’s children or countries says C.S Lewis [brackets added without italics]



The problem with this over-emphasis on emotions and making a psychology out of it is that it gives emotion too much power and gives ‘will’ and reason a lower rank. It is all about what one is feeling, what one should feel, what thoughts is being transmitted from the universe. No questions are asked such as, where are these emotions coming from? Why am I feeling jealous? Jealousy can also be good.



I see two guys being very good friends and I long to have a relationship as they do. I am jealous. Until now, the full force of jealousy has not manifested. Until now, my will is controlling my emotion, the jealousy is not overbearing for the will tends to reason and good. Because the will tends to reason, it does not allow emotion to run like a horse away from reality. Reason says (to jealousy), “Stop here, beyond this you cannot manifest because it may undermine yourself and others”. Reason prevails. Reason prevails also because the will tends towards good: I cannot be jealous for something so noble. I am jealous for I myself long for a relationship like theirs.



Plato and Classic Philosophy say that the soul is made of intellect and will. Emotions are of the body, the passions. Usually, passions take a man away from reason. It is not wrong to feel these passions but these passions are usually overbearing if reason does not keep its check and subject the passion to dominion of reason just.



If you feel hungry and wish to leave for lunch but have a project and project team stopping you, your emotions or passions can persuade you to leave. Reason has to prevail, saying,” look I cannot leave as no one else is leaving at this critical juncture” But passions may be too strong and one may cook up things like: why can’t I leave, I have finished my work? Often many people would call this lack of charity or individualism which is fine at a certain level but definitely does not help in projects.



Eventually you are going to do (action depends on will) where your will is pointing. If your will is pointing to reason (I ought to stay back), you will not go but simply control your hunger for a little while. if your will is pointing to emotions (Just leave and grab a bite, quick), the battle has already been won and you will begin to make some excuse like a phone call or that you have to visit the toilet in the pretext to leave for lunch. Deep inside, you know you ought to have waited back with your team. Nobody makes excuses for the right things but only for the wrong things.



Another thing about emotion is that people often say that we should ‘go with what your heart says (emotion) or ‘trust your feelings’ or ‘higher instinct’. They really don’t understand how emotions work. When a man is drowning, there is perhaps a will to help as everyone believes in helping but only fear, insecurity and weakness of losing one’s own life in the process, sets in as the primary emotions. In spite of this, reason demands: jump, he will lose his life. If I had to go with my emotions or with my ‘higher’ instinct, that was to flee, I would be choosing self-preservation over the highest nobility: life. Yes, prudence can be shown and self-preservation is also choosing life but it is choosing one’s own.



Man often feels emotions due to his own imperfections and often due to what society perceives is ‘sissy’, ‘pansy’, ‘girlee’, ‘dufas’ and all those stereotypes. At such times, either given in to what I ‘feel’ or command myself to adhere to reason and not emotion for emotions will always rebel against reason.



There are certain imperfections in Man. If Ben was brought up in a community where things work, an eye for an eye, there are chances, an act of virtue, of bearing up excess work in silence would be deemed by Ben as cowardice. An obedient person could be perceived by Ben as a weak person and the emotions running through Ben’s mind would be to avoid being associated with such people.



An Emotion is a horse galloping fast and Reason, the horse rider. The horse rider has to control the horse by reining it left or right and subjecting the horse to the right direction. Else we risk breaking the foundations of right and wrong by patronizing emotions and doing as we desire rather than doing what ought to be done.

The bare minimum

Today we talk about not an uncommon nature of man. In my school days, we had an organization that visited our school to garner funds for their NGO. They gave out forms for all students and we had to go, usually, door-to-door to collect money. This was a huge hit in the Nineties. Seventy-Five rupees was the minimum to earn a certificate and there were other rewards for those who surpassed 1000 and above. I never knew what those rewards were simply because I never ever reached there. I do not know who reached there as I was surrounded by hundred others who were content with the certificate.

There is a danger to interpret the notion I am slowly trying to form as a ‘lack of pursuit of excellence’. I am trying to elucidate a behaviour not a lack thereof. If I was trying to talk about a pursuit that man has none of, I am trying to talk about something wanting. No, I will stick to what man does not what he does not or cannot.

The behaviour of Man (that you may observe in yourself as I observe in myself) is that of the ‘bare minimum’. His will is not inclined to goodness but rather to ‘not being called an evil person’ To explain, it is like a banker whose only objective ought to be to maximize his money but according to bare minimum, the banker would only strive to avoid going bankrupt. His motto isn’t ‘how can I maximize profits’ rather it is ‘how can I surely not become bankrupt’

You will observe this ubiquituous phenomenon whenever there are choices to be made between good and evil. Man, in such a case doesn’t really will to do good but he is conscious that he ought to choose good for he tries never to be deemed ‘evil’. He continues his life satifsying the bare minimum. He doesn’t wish to dress with modesty or chastity. No, he doesn’t choose that but he asks questions such as: what bare minimum requires to be fulfilled in order that these clothes are not called obscene?. What minimum can I contribute in a fundraiser or to a beggar or in Church inorder that I am not called a miser?

Our hearts don’t will for virtue but only to satisfy the bare minimum in order to not be called sinners or defilers. A woman may hope that her outfit is not obscene. Deep inside, she has an inkling she may have crossed the line which means she will feel immensely peaceful if she has just made it within the line. She will not choose chastity through her outfit rather stay within ‘limits’ to not qualify as ‘obscenity’.

We don’t choose to vie for goodness.we are happy doing just enough to not be called a sinner. Such a ‘pursuit’ (I switch now from behaviour to the why the behaviour is allowed) is the virtueless waste. For it chooses to value the fear of turning into a sinner than choosing the joy and prudence of being a saint. An excellent student who returns home from school everyday oblivious to the distress of his fellow students at their inability could guiltlessly say, “Well, I have not disturbed, distracted, hidden or misled them in any way in order to be evil” Yes, but they need help and you haven’t done anything noble either.

It reminds me of this Catholic Prayer:

I confess to Almighty God, and to you my brothers and sisters that I have sinned through my own faults, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and what I have failed to do…

So perhaps you, a product of the ‘bare minimum’, of the virtueless waste think, what I have done? Nothing at all, I stayed within limits, what do I have to confess? And then meditate on what you have failed to do...Often, that is all the difference between a sinner and a saint.

Children and Pain

Some time ago, some fellows had a moral dilemma. They were talking about shouting at wives and I interrupted: why would you shout at your wife? Just be nice to her. They said you can’t be nice to your wife when she has patently annoyed you. I asked them to show more charity but they wondered where I was coming from. They asked me, “What’s wrong in shouting at wives, Don’t people beat children? Is it right or wrong?”


I now answer that it is wrong first to compare shouting at a wife that one does from their weakness and is not a tool like beating a child. To compare them both is to not understand the two different cases at all. I have other means with my child but I use beating (pain) as it is most effective (why such effectiveness is justified only in the case of children will be dealt with later). In the case of my wife I can’t use pain is because I am suppose to show love.


To shout is the absence of good. A patient person would show tolerance before breaking. To not possess the virtue of patience is not an excuse to yell or beat someone. A much more patient person would show a lot more patience before breaking. My point is, a person who makes a scathing remark instantly on his wife or yells at her at the drop of a hat, it shows, how much love has subjected him to obedience and virtue. Love makes us love our mothers. Love should make us love our wives and be understanding, respect their free will what they choose for themselves (until unless it undermines your marriage as a whole) Love makes a person increase in holiness (being patient, pure, generous, understanding).


And here is where I said that if a husband yells at a wife where he ought to show love, he is weak. This is fine, everyone is weak in different degrees. There is none who has escaped the fallen nature of Man. But some are weaker than others. Some try not to be weak and in that they show a lot of virtue because love disposes them to virtue. Some of them have by habit, created a vice. They are those of whom their wives say, “My husband, if my house is not in order, he gets wild” or “My husband, the minute he steps into the door, poor man, bad day at work, starts screaming at everyone” These men are more weak than others. They ought to try harder as the good men who love their wives and will never raise their voices much less fingers even under fire. Testimony to this fact is my father (so that no one says such men don’t exist. And Yes, I believe it is holiness that has made my father like this. Without holiness, he would be just like other men. )


Now I come to the crux of the topic of why such love may not be used with children.


You don't beat a woman because she is not a child. Somehow this line may seem to give the license to beat children. What is it about children that they can be beaten and what is it really about adults that they can't. There is something in adults (woman, adults, parents et all) that is missing in children due to which what is torture to woman is not so to children. What is ‘manhandle’ to woman is not so to children. What is ‘force’ to woman is not so to children. And that's why beating children, shouting at them is not the same and cannot be compared to beating and shouting at wives and women in general.


I am not trying to justify violence against children. Violence is to harm a person as its end. Beating children is violence when you beat children as an end. When you beat children because you are a father and you want to show them who is boss amounts to violence. I am not speaking of this form of beating. This form of beating uses 'they are my children I can do what I want' as a pretext to manhandle other beings. It makes objects of children such as tables and chairs we can fling in any corner of the house. This is downright wrong and is condemned by me too. But I am talking of beating in a much more philosophical sense


Beating causes pain. A child at his/her age cannot understand why a particular thing is good or bad. If he wants it, he wants it. It is not given to a child to reason or understand: may be my parents are not that wealthy. I think I am wrong in my demands. May be I will be a good boy and they, in their joy, give it to me


A child cannot reason like this. His will though, when he comes of age and that is why an adult (teen) is taken to psychologist to mend his ways and not to a policeman, to be threatened to mend them anyways. A psychologist will 'reason' with the teenager which if the teenager finds reasonable will amend his ways. Whereas a child will be threatened of being sent to military school or of the bogie man or of the devil snatching him away if he makes mischief. Fear of pain and pain itself plays a prominent role in a child's life because at such an age a child is more animal in his mind.


A child is full of passions (emotions). That is why when an adult who does not understand a mother's plight and demands for a bike is said to be acting childish. It is because such a behavior is uncalled for from him. He is supposed to allow reason to prevail. He is supposed to think: my mother is poor, how can I demand a bike from her, what if to make me happy she indulges in committing wrongs like shoplifting or sexual favors just to get me a bike?


A child will not 'reason' but only think through emotions. Emotions engulf a child. It is for the very same reason a child has to be bribed and deals have to be struck to aid him to excel. "Learn mathematics and mama will get you a chocolate" the child does not understand that mathematics is essential to his development to further advance into algebra or calculus like a teenager would. A child does not understand that mathematics is noble and much like an art that can be indulged in as a mathematician or a scientist understands it. Thus a mother uses bribe or fear (pain) to encourage him to believe in something he doesn't understand (why) only for the day that will come when he will understand goodness of mathematics in order to believe.


This is why mothers beat children. There are much tastier delicacies than ‘farex’ and baby food but a child can only understand baby food and liquids. There is still time for chicken, samosas, pulav and biryani. The child's age finally gives in to the 'real' delicacies when he is an adult. In the same way, a child cannot understand 'reason', he wouldn't understand if you speak to him on the nobility of science or the usefulness of geography to encourage him to study.


The child's turns into an adult gives in to reason not into pain and no more can this child-who-is-an-adult-now be beaten but has to be persuaded. Mothers usually complain to their friends, other agony aunts, "my son doesn't listen to me" this means she does not beat him but tries to reason and the ‘agony aunt friends’ don't say, "Why don't you cage him or beat him" they usually say, "Don’t worry, my son will speak to your son"


When a child is an adult and of 'reason' no more can you think of his good so much so to impose it on him of what he can't think for himself. You cannot force ‘good’ on him if he himself doesn't agree it is 'good'. This will be imposing your good on him. No one tells a mother who has a child of 6 years that she is imposing her idea of good on the kid for a child doesn't know what is good. Left to himself, he would think spending all year in Disney land and having all the toys in the world qualifies as ‘good’.


Now I will admit not all kids need to be beaten and rightly aren’t. Some are really disposed to obey. They have been brought up into thinking that only in obedience is their good. This is because they have faith in their parents. This is not a bad thing as people make of ‘faith’ today saying it is blinding and foolish and better not to trust anyone. No parents usually deceive their children. The trouble begins when the parents, in charge of guiding their children look to directing them towards their gain than that of the one's they are supposed to serve (children). We have faith in the law and hence we approach them. The trouble begins when the officers in charge of dispensing law look to their own gain than that of the one's they are supposed to serve (citizens)


Hence you can't beat a woman for your own requirement if she doesn't do or think as you say. She has been endowed with 'reason' as you are, to think for herself, as you think for yourself. Our love is first in respecting this freedom of will they have. We do not respect the freedom of will of a child not because he hasn't any but because his will is distorted and he doesn't know what is good. How do you respect a child's will who is ready to cry and break everything in the shop until the batman figure is his to take home? The same action if committed by a man we would say he is mentally ill. It is simply because the man has not let 'reason' prevail. We talk to the child in the language he understands-pain. Only till pain gives in to reason and no more does pain need to be used. For if it is used on a man who can reason, it is torture.

N.B: I am only writing on why people beat children and not why children ought to be beaten.

The Final analysis of Our Hope

I recall once asking my friend as we were on a boat ride towards Elephenta Caves. I looked at him in the face and told him: what If Moses or just one of the prophets, like Elijah is not true. The whole of the Bible will fall like a pack of Cards. For Jesus meets Moses on the mount during the Transfiguration. If Moses is not true, Jesus could not meet it and yet the Apostles record he did. So the Apostles lie. If the Apostles lie, the Bible loses its credibility as divinely inspired. Every other thing falls apart. 2000 years of Christendom starts crumbling down.

My friend replied that if the Bible was not true, he does not know what to believe in. His life might as well be summarized as a chain of endless days with no meaning at all. He wouldn’t have any hope of any good he did. A similar experience engulfed me recently when I was at Mass in Church

Whenever I come forward for communion in Holy Mass, I contemplate on the Cross or face of Jesus. The other day it dawned on me: what if Jesus’ death on the cross failed to dispose me towards love? What if it failed to bring out pain and sadness of his death and the glory of his victory? What if one day it all stops happening and I become indifferent to the whole event of the Passion and Death that divided time and changed the course of History?
I will have no hope left then.

On Fasting

Yesterday, we were speaking on fasts. Fast is to abstain from all or some kind of foods or go hungry to deny oneself. The rationale behind a fast is as important as the fast itself. If the fasting, from denying oneself turns into say, gaining oneself such as gaining for oneself a toned body or losing weight before the wedding or a ramp walk, then the same fast becomes a diet.


We have talked about the ontology of a fast. Now let us get on to rationale of a fast. I am a catholic and suffering is a fundamental element of Christianity. Jesus suffered for each one of us in the world and his suffering, redeemed. Anytime there is redemption, there is an element of suffering involved. Whether you redeem your brother who is unable to pay off his dues or you apologize on behalf of your mischievous son. There is always ‘denying’ in redemption. But look what Christ’s redemption did? It brought salvation to mankind. So we are asked to be like Christ and participate in this redemption by ourselves redeeming others and being the instrument of God in the lives of others. This will entail lot of suffering, don’t you think?

Fasting is based on the same lines of denying. While suffering in general, is hidden in the role a Mother plays for his son late into midnight checking on his temperature, fasting is a direct love. In the mother’s case, love is explicit and suffering is implicit. In fasting, the choice of suffering is may be explicit but is motivated by love. Christians fast to share the pain of the cross as Simon of Cyrene helped Jesus to carry the cross. Christians fast to tell Jesus, “Lord, you died for my sin, surely lord, I can give up my desire for coffee today for you”

Every form of Love requires an expression. The Romeo does it by climbing a perilous hilltop or idly waiting at the bus stop for an hour. There is suffering involved here too. But he is not concentrating on suffering but on love. Love motivates him to do it. What he is trying to say by buying an expensive diamond that cost him two months’ salary and his own bike is: I love you. The faithful do it by a fast. What they are trying to tell God is that, “Look, I love you, I am denying my desire for you. I have to die to my desire and I want to show you, I can go this far for you simply because love motivates me to do that,”