The religion of understanding and a self defined code of existence...

Picking up my bolg almost after eons now, I was wondering what to write about. But then what better to write than what facebook says, and the only thing "it" says, what's on your mind.

Being an avid fan of order and rules in person, it comes as a surprise to me, myself, that I am unable to relate myself to the usual norms, customs, practices and traditions that we all tend to follow. I'm not a perfect man, nor is anyone else. And so to keep this imperfect world in order we do need some guiding principles. Some tend to be the laws of our land, which also, of course, sometime fall short or far fetched. But I do not find myself much in disagreement to those, for those are still open to amendments. What bothers most are the so called unwritten laws that we tend to drag the baggage of, in the name of traditions, culture and what not.

Who made these traditions, who wrote that we need to follow a specific moral code and what is this moral code anyways? How do we say that some people who live somewhere else and lead a different kind of life are degraded or morally backwards, just because they do not do as we do? And so we, because we are forcefully taught to and maybe because we are scared to get degraded, accept that moral code, be it best to our happiness and wishes or not?

And then there are those who wear a mask of morality certified by the permanent ink of the unwritten law, and practice clandestine digressions. Why do they need to do that? The only reason is a dilemma.

I question, really? Is that what we want? Barring a law which is enforced by the judicial system of a society, and again is imperfect at times, do we really need to comply to a moral code. Why should our actions be governed by some traditions that were put forth thousands of years back when we were still thinking that the earth was flat? Why do we need to have so many moral principles to abide by?

Why can't it be simple? As simple as what can be postulated as "An action that does not cause harm to any of the entities involved. That brings joy and pleasure to the involved entities, is a morally upright action". And then the entities shun all those unwritten laws that we bind ourselves with and live in ever pressing dilemma about "Should I do this or shouldn't I?"

It needs to be simple and understandable. What was postulated, maybe ages back was applicable then and since then we have evolved enough that now each individual can postulate for himself as to what moral practice brings forth his or her happiness without bringing pain to anyone else involved (second part is important for we live socially and not as pure individual entities).

It's simple but different. As different as believing in God but practically understanding that he is not someone with 8 arms, holding conch, sword, bestowing blessings and what not with those hands. Nor is he who throws commandments written on stones from the sky. And then some would say tradition or religion. But practically thinking, all of it is actually a factual image of power, knowledge etc. Isn't that factual imagery created as a representation of the non material ideals, simply for the ease of relating to it? And so even if I bow down to Shiva, it does not mean I would go trekking on Kailash to search for him, though I would for the thrill of it...