Rational analysis of #HappyDusshera

Brace yourself; “Wishing you a very Happy Dusshera” texts are coming. Rather than changing ‘self’, wishers are expecting ‘others’ to change. Great. Forwarding such texts is cognitively a social pressure, than honestly abiding by it. I received one such ‘nice’ text, today morning. There are many texts, but given below text is the text which I received and is systematically coated with ‘beautiful’ words.  No offence to anyone, but cannot help to conduct a rational analysis of this text and also of the well-wishers. 


“Dasha Hara” is a ‘Sanskrit’ word which means “removal of ten bad qualities within you”

1) Kama vasana (Lust)

2) Krodha (Anger)

3) Moha (Attachment)

4) Lobha (Greed)

5) Mada (Over Pride)

6) Matsara (Jealousy)

7) Swartha (Selfishness)

8) Anyaaya (Injustice)

9) Amanavta (Cruelty)

10) Ahankara (Ego)

To begin with,

In defense of all the ‘bad’ qualities, as mentioned above; law of common-sense tells me that “values are subjective”. What’s good to me, may not be good to you.  Albeit common-sense is uncommon, these days, but one mustn’t forget that law of common-sense also tells us that “values cannot be quantified”. Note: I’m not infringing upon your discretion or telling you what it ought to be, but simply making an attempt to rationally justify or defend-ing the bad qualities, since your pledging to the treaty of “goodness”. What’s the value of light, without darkness huh? Well-wishers or contractors (thekedaars) of festivals must pay more attention to what they say and also to what they say does.


Lust and love have undergone a conjunction metamorphosis. Lust is a heightened state of seeing, observing, and hearing, of attentiveness to arousing detail.  Lust isn’t a life-threatening emergency, but its opposite: a potential life-beginning emergency, when attraction might lead to consummation which might lead to conception. Love, like lust, is an act of imagination, and it’s almost an alchemy, to glean a whole desirable human in the small gesture and minutiae of that person’s being. Lust’s power is thought to be cataclysmic although it can be generative. The association of lust primarily with sexual destruction and demise is a fairly modern one. “Lust” wasn’t always about sex, or pejorative. Its earliest meanings in the 1300s were to “please or delight.” You know what? It also takes lust. I mean lust in the broadest sense, of aroused energy for each other. It takes a zany, joyous, spontaneous, spirited approach to a life together. Instead of preaching me moral science, it would be better if these moral scientists wage war on tastelessness and aesthetic-sexual monstrosities.

Anger is an unscientific pique, and should not be mixed with that infatuated short-temperedness. Want to know what s/he thinks about you? Make her/him angry and it shall reveal the esoteric fact about you which has been rationally suppressed [till date] in the mind of this angry bird.. It works. Never mind. Anger gets a bad rap. It always gets blamed for those explosive outbursts you hear about in the news, road rage, post office shootings, and domestic disturbances. I wouldn’t want to be blamed for all those things. Would you? Does anger really deserve such a bad reputation? Could it be possible that anger is actually a good thing but it just gets used in the wrong way? Could it be something healthy and productive if used or channeled in helpful ways? Many people let anger get the best of them, replacing their rational thinking and leading them to do irrational things that are often violent. Anger is held responsible for so many bad things in our society that most people now think anger is completely wrong, not allowed, and a problem if you feel any of it. Anger is part of our basic emotional operating system, like our computers, meaning it is a core emotion, along with fear and love. These emotions are primal to us as humans, informing us about how to live our lives and how to survive. Anger can’t be surgically removed but it can be managed and channeled in ways that benefit us and don’t cause harm to others. In an effort to reframe the bad reputation that anger has gained, let’s understand why anger is one of our core emotions. Anger is energy. It is also a signal that tells us much about who we are and what is important to us. When we get angry, there is a biological response. Our bodies prepare for fight or flight, with perhaps a raised heartbeat, clenched fists, and tightness in the chest, all gearing up to protect ourselves and continue surviving.

Always allow yourself to have desires in order to observe its manifestations. Desire and attachment, what’s the difference? I think of desire as the glue of attachment. After all, life and attachment go hand in hand (i.e., they correlate: life = attachment, death = detachment. Attachment begets expectations, and expectations make us less lazy but more competitive. Isn’t it? Sitting idle and expecting, simply adds more fuel to the fire. The theory of attachment has nothing to do with irrational romance as telecasted in the bollywood films, but the theorem – in general – has to do everything with “working out” policy and it makes us more real than illusional. Attachment, according to me, may not be the root cause of all heartache, but must be surely the material cause of expanding consciousness. It also sparks a human being to pursue happiness with its possessions. Seems legit.

Many people call me greedy for my ideological defense of capitalism theory. OK. Never mind. Now, tell me, how much do I earn belongs to you and why? Is it not greed, when these humanists intimidate you with the terrorism of taxation and impudently force you to pay for various entitlements at gun-point? I have not understood that why it is greed to keep  my money with myself, without violating private property of yours? Greed, for me, is good as it keeps me unequal than others.  Anyways, my conversations with Marxists often go something like this:

Marxist: Capitalists are oppressors. Businesses serve greed and exploit customers and workers.

Me: If both parties in the consensual relationship did not feel they were better off–assuming no force, fraud or threats are involved–they would not make the agreement. There is a distinction between an offer and a dictate, one well worth contemplating deeply.

Marxist: It’s Stockholm syndrome. The victims are being psychologically manipulated into consenting to abusive relationships.

Me: But you can say that about anyone in any situation when you want to force your values onto others, “saving them” from what they are quite sure is what they want for their own.

Marxist: No, no, they are being manipulated and don’t realize it and they are hurting society with their bad example of agreeing to abusive relationships.

Me: Do you realize that making this claim, claiming someone incompetent to know what he should consent to that you are saying it’s okay for someone to impose his personal definitions and opinions of the greater good onto YOU? Do you realize that YOU could be the one declared unfit to know what your own choice is, by someone who wants to rule over your choices? Would you like someone declaring you too stupid to know what your own heart and conscience tells you?

Anything in excess isn’t over pride, but a surplus. LOL.  Over pride is peculiarly scorned by social members or contractors of moral sciences, because it begets you to love thyself more. Over pride, according to me, is an excess of self-love and it helps you to estimate your overestimations. I am not going by any dictionary or wikipedia page. OK? Basically, over pride is a psychological state of hyper self-love. It is not bad to love yourself excessively and hedonistically seek pride in your achievements, when social members around you pretend dishonestly.

When you’re not in possession of a particular good, wouldn’t you pump in jealousy and try to receive what you do not possess? Are you going to ride freely and servile thyself, without the factor of jealousy? Jealousy reveals your next step. You have to actually know what you want to get there, right? Awareness is key when you’re trying to reach your goals, and I believe jealousy is something that’s actually quite a good indicator of where you want to be in your life. It points out where you may be holding back and what your true emotion is regarding a life step or goal. It helps you make connections. When you see someone who has done what you want to do or has what you want, you should connect with her/him.   It turns into curiosity. When you feel envious of someone, turn it around and get curious. If you aren’t able to ask them how they achieved their success, at least get curious about their path and Google their story. I guarantee that by researching one person’s story, you’ll discover even more people who have gotten where you want to go and you’ll be able to get great tips for making your dreams happen.  It shows possibilities. So many people don’t know what they want from life, so use jealousy to your advantage. Whenever I feel jealous of the people who are further along in my industry, I turn that around and try to remember that they are helping me see what is possible down the line — most of which I had never even thought of! It leads to more gratitude. When you’re feeling jealous, don’t push that emotion away. Instead, turn the mirror around and look at what you’ve done and be grateful for that. And if you need some help seeing the picture clearly, contact a trusted friend who can remind you of everything you’ve accomplished and give you support in the steps you want to take next.

Nobody tells you “hello” selflessly. People who call you selfless are acting in their own self interest in calling you selfish. Did I just made sense? Even selfless people need basic necessities to survive. Read Ayn Rand’s The virtue of selfishness, anytime. human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as TRADERS , giving value for value. The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word “selfishness” is not merely wrong: it represents a devastating intellectual “package-deal,” which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind. In popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment. Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests. There is a fundamental moral difference between a man who sees his self-interest in production and a man who sees it in robbery. The evil of a robber does not lie in the fact that he pursues his own interests, but in what he regards as to his own interest; not in the fact that he pursues his values, but in what he chose to value; not in the fact that he wants to live, but in the fact that he wants to live on a subhuman level If it is true that what I mean by “selfishness” is not what is meant conventionally, then this is one of the worst indictments of altruism: it means that altruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man—a man who supports his life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others. It means that altruism permits no view of men except as sacrificial animals and profiteers-on-sacrifice, as victims and parasites—that it permits no concept of a benevolent co-existence among men—that it permits no concept of justice. To redeem both man and morality, it is the concept of “selfishness” that one has to redeem. The first step is to assert man’s right to a moral existence—that is: to recognize his need of a moral code to guide the course and the fulfillment of his own life . . . . The reasons why man needs a moral code will tell you that the purpose of morality is to define man’s proper values and interests, that concern with his own interests is the essence of a moral existence, and that man must be the beneficiary of his own moral actions. Since all values have to be gained and/or kept by men’s actions, any breach between actor and beneficiary necessitates an injustice: the sacrifice of some men to others, of the actors to the non-actors, of the moral to the immoral. Nothing could ever justify such a breach, and no one ever has. The choice of the beneficiary of moral values is merely a preliminary or introductory issue in the field of morality. It is not a substitute for morality nor a criterion of moral value, as altruism has made it. Neither is it a moral primary: it has to be derived from and validated by the fundamental premises of a moral system. Do you ask what moral obligation I owe to my fellow men? None—except the obligation I owe to myself, to material objects and to all of existence: rationality. I deal with men as my nature and theirs demands: by means of reason. I seek or desire nothing from them except such relations as they care to enter of their own voluntary choice. It is only with their mind that I can deal and only for my own self-interest, when they see that my interest coincides with theirs. When they don’t, I enter no relationship; I let dissenters go their way and I do not swerve from mine. I win by means of nothing but logic and I surrender to nothing but logic. I do not surrender my reason or deal with men who surrender theirs.

I think injustice is about how justice is constantly changing throughout time and it is almost impossible for everyone to act just when everyone has a different perception of justice. An example of this is how the Spartans believed that any land they touched with their spears belonged to them. The Athenians believed that any ground that produced olives or grain was their property. The statement that justice changes over time is obviously true. Justice is not one static thing, it changes over time and in different places because it’s not like a rock, tree, or color. Wisdom, prompts us to increase our resources, to multiply our riches, to enlarge our frontiers. If we were to abide by wisdom, we would be acting unjustly because that would constitute in conquering people. The point here is that if we were to act justly than the world would be a much different place than it is today. Over history there is always people conquering lands and building empires and that is how we evolve and become more advanced. No one’s perception of justice will be the same and if that day just so happened to come then we can live in a just world. Where everyone is following the same laws and acting justly. Until that day, everyone will act how they feel is just and not even care about any other group of people. Moreover, I say, injustice helps an individual to create the alternate models in seeking justice and the truth. For example: economy v/s catallaxy.

Cruel is a matter of perspective.” – Jack Sparrow. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Therefore, it depends on which side of the struggle you are. In other words, it’s a matter of perspective. This article will be probably cruel to the #InternetHindus, and they generally feel offended for every rational expression you make. Never mind. I suggest you to read the wiki profile of Max Stirner and develop your consciousness on egoism.

Anything else?

About Jaimine

An anarchist habituated with critical thinking and passionate to liberate many subconscious minds.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *