/vɔɪs/

My aim behind joining the MA English course was to be able to do something with the sense of awareness we already seem to have – of the world, of ourselves. First of all, there’s no point in just being aware unless you can actually put it in the vocabulary that fits it the best. So yeah, I’m working on it.

Awareness alone won’t change things much. It is what you make of it. When I was an on my job, I was often amused to see how people couldn’t or rather did not have an opinion of their own on news and stuff. It was all a given. There’s a beautiful place in Uganda. Yes there is. “Hey! They are facts!” Well…

My awesome sports editor would always insist on making every story my own. He would read my story and say, “Yes, Nadal won. I get it. But where’s YOUR story?” and he would turn away. [so zen noh? :D ]

So that’s when I felt I lacked a voice of my own. I had a room alright, but voice?

My journey hereafter will be about finding my own voice. I realized this in a class [side?] discussion when a professor was talking about writing something "original" for a term/research paper.

In this age of information, it takes a balanced mind to allow for original thoughts. Hey, make space while I find my own voice.... ;)

something sometime someone said

[It's been a while since I posted. Hence, it took me some time to type this one out. It isn't a random reactionary ranting. I hope.]

Sometimes I wonder if I have any right at all to feel anger and rage at a comment by someone.

What kind of comment you ask?

I’m asked why I’m against Hinduism. [Before, I used to deal with ‘why are you sooo pro-Hinduism’ questions.] No matter what your stand, you’re always questioned. Which is a good thing I guess… Actually, my stance hasn’t changed one bit. But the way I react to things, have.

I sometimes surprise myself with all those religious ideals I have in mind. I wonder why they are required. Are they just some utopic worlds? The spiritual-unattainable world? What makes me give into this patriarchal system which evidently acts as an ‘Ideological State Apparatus’ like Althusser reckons.

When I listen to stories of the daasa poets or for that matter Kabir or Meera, and Rumi of course, I fall in love. I fall in love with them, I fall in love with the world, with God, with myself, with the little details of life. I used to call that Zen, bliss. I also call it devotion sometimes.

Why do I feel so liberated in what is merely a master-slave relationship? Why would I even take that to be liberation?!

Actually, at that moment, the society doesn’t matter. Neither does the individual. There’s only merging of entities. Of energies. There’s no hierarchy at that moment. Or so I feel. Because in the very articulation of it, there’s a problem. A glitch in the system. Let’s blame it all on language which empowers and disempowers us. All the same.

All that beauty-bliss apart, what about the philosophy itself? So my professor at college was pointing out a “flaw” in it. He was of the opinion that the problem with most of Indian philosophy is that it bases all its arguments on theology.

So is “our” philosophy a constant denial of the real? Is the spiritual in opposition to the material? Well...

Going back to the question, am I against Hinduism? Hell no. I’m against the appropriation of all communities into “Hinduism”. I’m against those fundamental-extreme views. I’m against using the name of religion to control women. I’m against making her stick to roles already pronounced. For that matter, I’m against force of any kind. Because that, for me, defeats the whole purpose of faith. Am I going too far equating religion and faith?
Anything that you do should be a choice – something that flows into your being. That way, it stays – your faith becomes your own. Not some abstract notion passed down by your forefathers (foremothers?).