The comfort-Luxury divider

Why is it that so many people want to live luxurious lives exen when a majority of the population stuggle to make ends meet? Is it not unfortunate that so many people strive to make more money to live luxuriously rather than to do more charity??

I've come across households where there are 4 or 5 automobiles (all 4 wheelers mind you) with only 2 or 3 members who can legally drive. Its ridiculous. No amount of justification is going to validate acts like that.

There is a fine line between comfort and luxury. Yes, every earning member wants to give his/her family a comfortable life but is that what they're striving for or is it luxury? More often than not it seems that it is the latter.

I'm not saying that everybody should renounce all worldly possessinons and lead saintly lives. I just want to say that we should spare a thought (or rather an action) for the less fortunate.

It may seem difficult to distinguish between comfort and luxury at first but a simple way to do it is to analyze if it is a need or a want.

How often do we do more than uttering a "Oh.. So sad" or "How unfortunate" when we come across the poverty ridden masses??

Certainly charity begins at home but let it not stay within the four walls of it. There is nothing to gain out of living luxuriously. Even the 'happiness' derived from it is not true joy.

Accumulating wealth and material possessions is pointless. A smile on the face of a person in need who's been helped is much more precious. After all, memories are what we cherish throughout our lives. We are remembered for what we do rather than what our bank balance is.

I'm blogging after a really long time now. What has prompted me a news item about Dr. Abdul Kalam being frisked at IGI.

Firstly I would like to clarify that this has nothing to do with the former president. He is one of the few politicians I have great respect for. This post has more to do with the guidelines given to airlines.

The news item states that VIP's and VVIP's have to be exempt from security checks. I wish to disagree on this because all VIP's are humans too and its quite possible for them to go in the wrong path.

Also, considering the number of criminal cases pending against some of our bureaucrats (like the famous Pappu Yadav) I see no reason why they should not be risked. I mean, its all the more reason why they should be frisked!!

Let me make it clear that I'm for frisking of VIP's, both Indian and foreign.

Talking about politicians, let me digress a bit about the kind of treatment they receive here. Its insene that all traffic has to come to a standstill if they're passing by. They should be in the same traffic to realize what the common man goes through everyday. As picturized in a Tamil movie, the road traffic comes to a halt cuz a politician's plane is passing!!

This is the kind of privileges they get (or rather DEMAND). Honestly, they don't do enough to deserve this.

God help us

Is Renuka Choudhry in her senses??!!

Happened to read the article about Renuka Choudhry mooting the idea of penalizing fathers or minor drivers.
IS SHE MAD??!!
Mothers are supposed to care more for children (so much so that even in the case of a divorce, they are entitled to keep the child) but when an offence is committed, the father is penalized!!
I can't understand what the mothers are doing when their kids are committing offences.
And so much for the concept of "EQUALITY" that women want. Much like "EQUALITY with 33% RESERVATION!"
She seems to be discharging her duties as Minister of Women and Childcare, or whatever it is, with utmost dedication that she's even getting so obviously partial. Its really unfortunate that ppl in such' posts' are coming up with 'brianwaves' like these.
GOD HELP US!

Afterlife

This is something thats always fascinated me. I personally believe that the body n soul are two separate entities which is what the dvaita philosophy states. This means that any living being is a combination of matter and energy or conciousness.
Coming to think of it from the point of view of science, by the Law of Conservation of Energy, energy can neither be created nor destroyed but can only be converted from one form to the other. So, the total energy of the universe is constant.
Let us assume that some 'X' dies. If the energy contained in 'X' was 'E' units, this energy dissipates out of the body of 'X'.
It could be assumed that this 'E' units of energy dissipates into the atmosphere.But it must be kept in mind that new 'bodies' are coming into existence too and they need energy to become 'living'.
So this 'E' enters a body ( or matter) and so it becomes living completing a full cycle of events.
It is not at all necessary that this 'E' units must enter a single 'body'. Depending on the quantization, it can enter as many 'bodies' as possible..