Hell multiplies over!

Every religion has Gods, one at least. Every religion has scriptures, or at least a doctrine. And, every religion has the concept of 'heaven' and 'hell', or at least 'hell'. And, each religion has its own concept of good and bad. If you do good, you go to heaven, and if you do bad, you go to hell. But, what if you neither did good nor bad? Where would you go? I don't know if any religion talks about that. OK! Let's take this example: Two people of different religions have lived similar lives, having committed the same sins. Now, since the concept of 'wrong' is different across religions, these souls would have to suffer differently in different hells, because it would be cruel to treat the same sins differently in the same hell. So, obviously, there needs to be a separate heaven and hell for each religion. Having said that, what about a person who doesn't believe in any religion? And, what about a person who had converted from one religion to another? Where would they be punished? Maybe he would first end up at the gates of the hell corresponding to his birth religion and then be referred to the gates of his new religion? And, surely, there must be a neutral hell, where all cases of atheists, agnostics, and dispute end up. Disputes, such as those where one's husband is of a religion different from that of her birth, wherein she might be required to get an NOC from her father's God so she can be punished as per her husband's religion! And, this common hell can be for animals as well. Generally, animals don't sin, but what about lizards in women's bathrooms that might have driven the woman to run and break her leg? And, what about different religions having different populations? Gods whose religions have high population and thereby high death rates would have more daily work than those other religions and would obviously be angry at the 'relaxed' Gods who don't do as much work, but get paid all the same. Either all this is true, or God is One!

When the predictability of outcomes is zilch

Some people want to get everything right and trust the effort little to fetch results. They would choose the right astrological timing, wear the right gems, and even rename themselves, in order to achieve a desired outcome of an effort. They'd consider it utter callousness to discount the propitiousness of the timing, the radiance of the gems or the vibrations of their names. Above all this, there'd be God whom they would invoke or the god-man whose blessings they would seek. If astrology were true, and it predicted bad times for an individual, and if the bad times could be bypassed through gemological or numerological changes, then astrology is wrong. And, if one chose Topaz over Emerald, by choice, then it was probably destined to be so. If these three 'gies' (and a plethora of other such branches of interventional life studies) are what people believe them to be, then they share the locus of control, which is the life of the individual, and would obviously be conflicting or redundant if followed altogether. It's logical if one goes by one of the 'gies': Astrology, Numerology, Gemology, God-man, but not all! If one trusts one of these "gies" wholly, then where is the need for any other? And, if one trusts in the biggest of the 'gies', God, where is the need for any other? Above everything, if one concentrates on the pleasure of doing the action more than its result, then there's nothing called failure.

Conflict, the true anthem of men

What is a conflict? Conflict is cross-fire between two sides that cannot ideally co-exist, unless harboured in a troubled mind; two sides to an irreconcilable inequality. An example of conflict is when one who is desperate not to put on weight, finds chocolate irresistible. For my book, Newton's Law Reversed, which is taglined 'Conflict: Some evade, some efface, while most embrace', I chose 'Conflict' as the theme because I found most people around me (including myself) to be compromising (on different aspects), and hence in denial, with respect to things that they desire but don't possess, or people they wish to be but cannot. The reason for the compromise and denial is lack of mental strength, material wherewithal and/or social support. Conflicts produce pain and stress in our minds, so they are not readily acceptable to the mind. And, there are different ways different people deal with conflicts. Partly, our culture is to blame since it protects/sympathises with/helps those who are weak or who proclaim to have problems. The result of this is the creeping of a disastrous feeling named 'self-pity', on account of which, some of us embrace conflicts and we love them since it makes us feel important to ourselves on account of the self-pity. And, then there are these people who don't use self-pity to protect or justify their own state, but assume that nothing is wrong, whereas they sweep the problems under the carpet, so that they can protect themselves from the mental agony. These people, who evade conflict, appear wholesomely happy on the surface, but harbour deep wounds within. The final type of people, those who efface conflict, are the only ones who are able to face and resolve conflicts. These are people who don't blame anyone or anything for their failures, and rise above all criticism. Think of things that you have missed having, or being. Think of why you haven't been able to achieve those. Here's to you to ascertain your conflicts and destroy them in the most acceptable manner. Remember, there's no bad conflict: every conflict makes us stronger, more understanding of ourselves, or more mature.

Lose your spirit, and you can have your father's

We tend to fulfill our dreams, desire, and promises through our offspring. What if the child has the exact opposite in mind to do? The parent wants the boy to become a doctor, whereas the boy wants to be a photographer, wherein lies the conflict. If the father is unable to push the agenda through other emotional means, he then questions the love that the boy has for his parents. Does love figure here at all? This is plain, emotional blackmail. And, the worst part is that parents seldom ask anything for themselves. It's for their "children's welfare" that they want them to act in a certain manner. "Become a doctor, you will earn a lot and be happy". It's similar to asking you to sacrifice what would give you happiness, so that you can be happy. This kind of sacrifice is spiritual suicide. The father wants the son to be something because he himself could not become it, since his own father wanted him to be something he didn't want to. It's a virus handed down generations and it has to stop somewhere. Vicarious pleasures, happiness, and achievements are past participles. The new age philosophy is simple enough: If you wanna do it, you do it. Let others do what they wanna do! By virtue of being the parents of a child, there's more responsibility towards the happiness of the child than claim to ownership of the child's life. After all, the child didn't choose his parents, it's the parents who chose to bring the child into the world.