Since long a pseudo-monologue has been pestering me. Who is better off? The poor but good people or the prosperous but evil? The comparison, notably, is not only on the monetary parameter. Interestingly enough, it is on all possible parameters you can ever think of. They say, money is root of all evils. Let it be. Had it not been, the money I mean, how would you have bought men? On barter? In that case, present day Marxism would have flourished like anything. One Rightist for a dozen of Leftist!
That digression notwithstanding, let me share my thesis. I am not religious man, per se. Neither is my work.
It has been an year since I had stumbled upon this question. Earlier I broomed it with a view that I was too naive to ponder upon it. Later, however, I took it just like I took engineering! My premise itself was biased. I assumed that the evil is better. The reason is simple. Look anywhere on the time line. Right from ancient to current days, the statement holds true. Yes, it's empirical. The thesis is. Feelings can't be quantified as of date. Isn't it? So, the empirical evidence confirms the fact that the so called evil fellas were the ones who were better off. They were prosperous, lived in mansions, had beautiful women, enjoyed all material pleasures (Can anyone please tell me a non-materialistic one? Please stave off the spiritual one beforehand), had servants/slaves for prole jobs, controlled big businesses, some were landlords or even kings, were wicked (by default!) and were hence burden on humanity. The last two traits are necessary evils, available ubiquitously.
Let's start from Mr. Ram. First of all, I still can't believe such a human could exist. He was really funny, you see. He was mighty, suave, adorable, learned, well-groomed and had terrific reasoning capabilities. Accepted. What was the achievement of life? Relinquishing the throne to younger kin? Wandering in jungles with ladij? Searching the stolen (or lost?) ladij with supernatural powerpuffed monkeys and bears? Or Killing a out-and-out talented man with the help of the tip-off by the latter's disgusting disgruntled younger kin? Asking the ladij to prove virginity or vacating the palace for some petty washer man, who remarked - a rather embarrassing one - about the ladij? What? Compare the slain fellow once. Conquered heaven, had a gorgeous wife, lived in palace (made of gold with a sea facade, you see), had a chartered aeroplane, true worshipper of God, a great ruler who controlled a substantial trade and commerce, had the beautous ladij as a serene view in the commensurately beautiful park for a good period of time and as a cheese topping on the pizza, the veteran was sent straight direct to heaven (for uninterrupted continual of facilities he had been enjoying on earth) by none else but the incarnation of God himself! A life worth lived. What else would you ask for?
Let's come a tad closer to present. Duryodhan. Again, well-groomed, prosperous, mighty, ambitious, shrewd. Enjoyed the life and throne to the full. In the end? The big fellow handed him a ticket for the heaven by killing him. Mr. Krishna got a bit confused I think. The big fellow was never that smart that he could outsmart Duryodhan, the then king of land and a noted connoisseur of the weapon the big fellow used to crack him down illegally. If you notice in both cases, the martyr has been victimised because of some or other unlawful act. Agreed, that Duryodhan took aide of biased dices to show the fundu-five way out. But then who slained Jarasandgh? Wasn't it the dear God himself who got the assassination job done from the big fellow, with His prowess and his power? Unfair! The good thing is, Duryodhan got to heaven. Compare the fundu-five. Talented, well-groomed and blah-blah, helped by the God himself. Achievement? Wandered in scary jungles in most part of the life? Shared one women, the one who made them victim of Duryodhan's wrath? Lost kingdom two times in casino (guess why we don't have Casinos nowadays)? Throned with the help of the crutches of God who himself had to move his kingdom a thousand kilometres westwards, for he was tired fighting? What?
Even closer. Samrat Ashok. Ditched by father and kins for throne even when he was the one who conquered the entire land, save the last few traces, this man was a true legend. We know him as a great king who accepted Buddhism. Why? The Kalinga war moved him (from violence). Hah! What a joke. Once you have the entire land in your hand, whom you are going to fight with? Right hand with the Left? He was no stupid. And mind you, History is written by the winners. He had won. He wrote it. We know him as a peace loving emperor who did a great job for social cause. Yes, he did. That was his job. But he was no peace lover or piegon freak. He was a brutal and ruthless conqueror who made his own way through all odds.
Akbar. Even bigger joke: Akbar was benign ruler and a saviour of mankind in the peninsula. Because we can't accept that our then kings were so eunuch-like that they couldn't stop the invasions from the Mongols, we accept that the erstwhile barbarians suddenly transmogrified to benign ones. Touch of the Indian soil, perhaps. British. They came on the poop and showed us that our rulers are boob. They were properous. They are still. Americans. They make Saddams and Osamas for oil, and then eliminate them for more oil. They were prosperous. They are. Our politicians. They make us fight for education, job and existence in the name of caste, creed, race and religion. They are prosperous. They don't even die! These are illustrations as to how evil men manage to record themselves as the saviour of mankind in history.
So why are you still the good boy on the block? Adduce galore you have. Be the bad boys. You will enjoy the life not only here but even the afterlife.
That digression notwithstanding, let me share my thesis. I am not religious man, per se. Neither is my work.
It has been an year since I had stumbled upon this question. Earlier I broomed it with a view that I was too naive to ponder upon it. Later, however, I took it just like I took engineering! My premise itself was biased. I assumed that the evil is better. The reason is simple. Look anywhere on the time line. Right from ancient to current days, the statement holds true. Yes, it's empirical. The thesis is. Feelings can't be quantified as of date. Isn't it? So, the empirical evidence confirms the fact that the so called evil fellas were the ones who were better off. They were prosperous, lived in mansions, had beautiful women, enjoyed all material pleasures (Can anyone please tell me a non-materialistic one? Please stave off the spiritual one beforehand), had servants/slaves for prole jobs, controlled big businesses, some were landlords or even kings, were wicked (by default!) and were hence burden on humanity. The last two traits are necessary evils, available ubiquitously.
Let's start from Mr. Ram. First of all, I still can't believe such a human could exist. He was really funny, you see. He was mighty, suave, adorable, learned, well-groomed and had terrific reasoning capabilities. Accepted. What was the achievement of life? Relinquishing the throne to younger kin? Wandering in jungles with ladij? Searching the stolen (or lost?) ladij with supernatural powerpuffed monkeys and bears? Or Killing a out-and-out talented man with the help of the tip-off by the latter's disgusting disgruntled younger kin? Asking the ladij to prove virginity or vacating the palace for some petty washer man, who remarked - a rather embarrassing one - about the ladij? What? Compare the slain fellow once. Conquered heaven, had a gorgeous wife, lived in palace (made of gold with a sea facade, you see), had a chartered aeroplane, true worshipper of God, a great ruler who controlled a substantial trade and commerce, had the beautous ladij as a serene view in the commensurately beautiful park for a good period of time and as a cheese topping on the pizza, the veteran was sent straight direct to heaven (for uninterrupted continual of facilities he had been enjoying on earth) by none else but the incarnation of God himself! A life worth lived. What else would you ask for?
Let's come a tad closer to present. Duryodhan. Again, well-groomed, prosperous, mighty, ambitious, shrewd. Enjoyed the life and throne to the full. In the end? The big fellow handed him a ticket for the heaven by killing him. Mr. Krishna got a bit confused I think. The big fellow was never that smart that he could outsmart Duryodhan, the then king of land and a noted connoisseur of the weapon the big fellow used to crack him down illegally. If you notice in both cases, the martyr has been victimised because of some or other unlawful act. Agreed, that Duryodhan took aide of biased dices to show the fundu-five way out. But then who slained Jarasandgh? Wasn't it the dear God himself who got the assassination job done from the big fellow, with His prowess and his power? Unfair! The good thing is, Duryodhan got to heaven. Compare the fundu-five. Talented, well-groomed and blah-blah, helped by the God himself. Achievement? Wandered in scary jungles in most part of the life? Shared one women, the one who made them victim of Duryodhan's wrath? Lost kingdom two times in casino (guess why we don't have Casinos nowadays)? Throned with the help of the crutches of God who himself had to move his kingdom a thousand kilometres westwards, for he was tired fighting? What?
Even closer. Samrat Ashok. Ditched by father and kins for throne even when he was the one who conquered the entire land, save the last few traces, this man was a true legend. We know him as a great king who accepted Buddhism. Why? The Kalinga war moved him (from violence). Hah! What a joke. Once you have the entire land in your hand, whom you are going to fight with? Right hand with the Left? He was no stupid. And mind you, History is written by the winners. He had won. He wrote it. We know him as a peace loving emperor who did a great job for social cause. Yes, he did. That was his job. But he was no peace lover or piegon freak. He was a brutal and ruthless conqueror who made his own way through all odds.
Akbar. Even bigger joke: Akbar was benign ruler and a saviour of mankind in the peninsula. Because we can't accept that our then kings were so eunuch-like that they couldn't stop the invasions from the Mongols, we accept that the erstwhile barbarians suddenly transmogrified to benign ones. Touch of the Indian soil, perhaps. British. They came on the poop and showed us that our rulers are boob. They were properous. They are still. Americans. They make Saddams and Osamas for oil, and then eliminate them for more oil. They were prosperous. They are. Our politicians. They make us fight for education, job and existence in the name of caste, creed, race and religion. They are prosperous. They don't even die! These are illustrations as to how evil men manage to record themselves as the saviour of mankind in history.
So why are you still the good boy on the block? Adduce galore you have. Be the bad boys. You will enjoy the life not only here but even the afterlife.