All of a sudden Ms. Bhavani's mood has changed. Now she seems to have entered the arena of philosophical discourse. Below is excerpts from her discourse delivered today morning. She has been very kind to me and readily agreed to provide a written excerpts on her own. Hopefully, she will contribute more such texts to this space in future.
[Disclaimer: All views and opinion expressed in following lines are exclusively attributed to Ms. Bhavani.]
"We often say that we should behave like human beings. But what is so great about a human being who behaves as a human being.If a tiger kills at will, we don't consider it wrong. If an animal chooses its mate by violent means, we don't think it is unnatural, because they have no code of conduct. So at one end of the spectrum we have animals, and at the other end we have God. There is no right or wrong in the animal stage. And we don't question the rightness or otherwise of God's actions either. If we push a man into the sea, and he dies, we would be labelled murderers. But God brought the sea into the land during the tsunami, and thousands died in the process. But while we may have cried for the victims of the tragedy, did we blame God for what happened? But man is in the in- between stage. He is neither an animal, whose conduct is not questioned, nor is he God, whose conduct is not questioned. He is the bridge between the two stages. So a man merely continuing to be a man is like building a house on a bridge. We must transcend the human state to reach the divine state. what sense does it make for a human being to be merely human, without aspiring to a higher philosophical state? A human being, therefore, must see the human state as an intermediary step in his upward journey. To be content to be human is to stagnate."
[Disclaimer: All views and opinion expressed in following lines are exclusively attributed to Ms. Bhavani.]
"We often say that we should behave like human beings. But what is so great about a human being who behaves as a human being.If a tiger kills at will, we don't consider it wrong. If an animal chooses its mate by violent means, we don't think it is unnatural, because they have no code of conduct. So at one end of the spectrum we have animals, and at the other end we have God. There is no right or wrong in the animal stage. And we don't question the rightness or otherwise of God's actions either. If we push a man into the sea, and he dies, we would be labelled murderers. But God brought the sea into the land during the tsunami, and thousands died in the process. But while we may have cried for the victims of the tragedy, did we blame God for what happened? But man is in the in- between stage. He is neither an animal, whose conduct is not questioned, nor is he God, whose conduct is not questioned. He is the bridge between the two stages. So a man merely continuing to be a man is like building a house on a bridge. We must transcend the human state to reach the divine state. what sense does it make for a human being to be merely human, without aspiring to a higher philosophical state? A human being, therefore, must see the human state as an intermediary step in his upward journey. To be content to be human is to stagnate."
