The marauders of Mumbai, who kept the Taj Heritage and Oberoi Trident hostage for more than 60 hours on 26/11 were no abnormal screamingly fanatic or paranoid.
They seem to be average, common and normal people.
Moreover, before the 26/11 Indian media were show-casing the astounding exploration of Hindu extremists involved in Malegaon Blasts.
While studying both the cases one can easily notice the important applications of psychology of all the cultists. Common definition of cult is “a particular system of religious worship”. The system can be any like Islamo-fascists, Hindu-extremists, Naxalists, and Bajrang Dali’s, SIMI activists, Regionalists (MNS workers and Shiv Sainiks), LTTE supporters, Scientologists, Zionists, Vegetarians, Animal Rightists, Feminists, Libertarians, Sanghis, Communists, Christian Crusaders, Skinheads, racists or others. Ignorance to reality in the form of cultism can be seen in many forms and all these forms hold a visible resemblance.
The common characteristic such aggressors hold is that they belong to a group or other. Their individual thinking does not drive them, they do not function alone. They join a particular group, acquire the ideas of that group, and adopt the characteristic of that group. They act like the droplets of water cohesively giving birth to a devastating flood, which can cause a murderous terrorist attack.
It is the group psychological effect, which makes the terrorist.
It is the group, which produces such terrorist and the cult. The members of the group can be rich or poor, well-educated or illiterate, they can be of same religion or of different religion, they can be of same race or inter-racial, race, religion, economic status and other differences becomes less important when group members vibrantly accepts the ideology of the group. The group members produce a strong, family-like bond, which provides an astounding power to the group over its members leading them even to embrace their own deaths. The member’s own existence becomes less important for him and the goals and ideas of the group become his primary concern and most important asset. To defend these illusive assets, the member even readily accepts sacrificing himself. The members than do not consider others who are not a part of their group as human. They recognize only those as human and brethren who actively engages with them to achieve their ideas. Anyone else, who does not accept their ideas, becomes their enemy. The nature of enemies differ from group to group and these enemies becomes less human and more hurdles for the group members, and to achieve the goals of the group, the hurdles need to be removed.
At least 40 Muslims suffered death in Mumbai attack. The reason was same. Islam did not drive the terrorists, but they were enthusiast by their group ideology. Anyone else not belonging to their group was an enemy. And enemies are things, de-humanized, evil and hence it is not possible for the members of a particular aggressive group to feel empathy or compassion for others.
It is not as if groups always work for destruction. Knowledge is power and groups can be set of knowledge too like the AryaSamajists, Libertarians, Objectivists, Anarcho-capitalists, Austrian economists, Spiritualists, Environmentalists, Aristotelians, Ram Krishna ParamHans Mission, and many others.
There can be great advantage of joining a group of like-minded people with similar thinking and ideas. However, one should be clear about the dangers of joining such groups and one must be careful enough to keep sacrosanct his own individualistic approach of reality. Because if he do not, he may not become a terrorist, but he surely can be a cultist.
As an individual, the member of any group is strongly driven with the “urge to belong” to the group which many a times refrains him from using his own surety, And that creates a scene of monkey like character.
One should be careful about his distinction as an Individualist rather than a member of the group. Once the membership of the group becomes more important than the individual character of that person, he becomes a cultist. He no longer remains a reasonable fan of an ideology; rather he becomes a blind-follower.
Nevertheless, it is not easy to remain an independent thinker. It is not very easy to be a rational performer of a group. Most people are biological robots. Monkey see, monkey do.
It is necessary to check such attitude. One should have proper reasonable grounds to avoid the cultist nature.
A person joining a group (political, religious, philosophical, or other type) should be ready to check the facts independently and should not blindly follow the herd.
As for example, a group of people supporting Gun Rights, should have proper rational ideas about why they support gun rights, similarly, a pro-anti-gun-laws should be clear about the reason for his opposition to the guns.
As a matter of fact, the terrorist and violent groups do not only exploit this group psychological effect over the Individual members, but the nationalists, politicians, bureaucrats and authoritarians often exploit the “Crowd Mentality”. The politics of vote bank based on religion, castes and economic status is also an example of similar cultist behavior. To keep the democracy thriving, the individual participant not only need to defend his freedom to think and have an independent point of view, but also he need to oppose the making of democracy as a means of violent rule of majority over minority, otherwise even such majority rules won’t be much different then the terrorists.

Often it is assumed that human are different from nature. And that causes the point of contention between natural and artificial.
This duality between Nature and Human is asserted by two means, firstly, it is said that Human Constructs are artificial, they are not natural. Otherwise, the other way is to state that some human constructs are artificial while some are natural.
Indian philosophies says that Nothing can go against the laws of nature (Taitreya Vedanta) furthermore, it says that even the supernatural, the almighty god, can never break any natural law because it is what he made, that is, no miracle is possible and whatever happens, happens in accordance with natural universal laws.
Another Indian philosophy says that nature and artificial are one in same, there is neither dichotomy nor any duality (Advait Vedanta).
I completely agree with the philosophy of Advait Vedanta.
By default, whatever which exist, is natural. Something which can be said as unnatural would be something which is impossible to occur and which cannot exist at all. It means that, to state something or someway as better than others because it is ‘ natural’ is redundant and wrong. Also, to speak of some existing phenomenon as artificial or unnatural is absurd. So, Artificial can never be unnatural, what is it then?
Irrespective of one is creationist or evolutionist, human cannot be said as unnatural. Artificial is that, which is a natural product of human efforts by means of human intelligence, and again human intelligence is also a part of nature and no human intelligence can ever break any natural law (human may not be able to comprehend all natural laws an phenomenon). So what is artificial Intelligence? It must be clear that Artificial Intelligence is nothing like unnatural and it is completely natural because to say something as beyond nature or unnatural is to assert that it is supernatural and that is impossible.
Nature is beyond biases, it is neutral. Everything is neutral despite the consequences of it, irrespective of how common or rare it is, when it occurs or doesn’t occurs, whether it is profitable or detrimental, good or bad for human or other species, and so on. That which is natural, which occurs or exists, cannot be assumed to be good or bad by virtue of it being natural. Nature doesn’t have any intrinsic value (Nirguna Brahma). To say that which is natural is inherently good or bad means that everything is either good or bad, and that is absurd.
Also, nature is not static, it is dynamic, it is in a state of constant flux (Parivartan Sansaar ka Niyam hai!). So, whatever is natural doesn’t necessarily mean that it is universal or inevitable or permanent. It means that whatever is current in present scenario can very well be outmoded rendered and archaic in the future. Thus, appealing to the past as ‘natural’ is simply an irrational argument. What once was natural can be outdated over time, and what once was just a dream in past can be natural in present. The present and future is no less “natural” and naturalness of things in the context of past, present and future is irrelevant.
The irrational concept of natural/artificial duality is manifested in the arguments of the primitivists, anti-civilizaionists, and radical environmentalists. The contemporary science and technology and expanded horizon of human labour is criticised as “unnatural” while the more archaic and self-sufficient ways of living are “romanticised” as ‘natural’. Human civilization is signified as inherently against the nature and human is considered as the “destroyer of nature”. Radical egalitarians also uses same dichotomy as they suggest egalitarianism as ‘natural’ while hierarchy is considered to be ‘unnatural’.
The conservatives also try to use this irrational concept of artificial/natural duality. Dogmatic class hierarchy, religious authority, racism, casteism, nationalism, linguistic preferences and biases have been characterized as ‘the natural order’ as if they are the unalterable laws of nature and intrinsic authorities and deviations from them is considered as ‘unnatural’, anyone going against them is considered as antagonistic with nature. Conservative philosophy strongly appeals to tradition as being ‘natural’, and divergence from tradition such as homosexuality, live-in relationships, sodomy, transvestites, secularism, multiculturalism, inter-caste, inter-religion, inter-continental marriages and sexual relations are assumed as “unnatural”. Even many of them consider sex-education in schools is immoral and unnatural.
Socialistic and Statist theory supporters also use this artificial/natural duality to assert that a centralized political system involves man existing in ‘the state of nature’, and the rise of centralized political organization is considered as some ‘inevitable natural law’. While freedom is considered as “unnatural” and anyone rejecting the idea of statist government is considered as opposed to “nature”, Miniarchist, anarchists are considered as unnatural or are compared with a primitives “natural state” before centralized political organization took place.
As a matter of fact, all these various types of social phenomenon and organization can certainly be analyzed as profitable or more beneficial than other, yet, none can be said as “unnatural”. In fact, whether or not they are “natural” is totally irrelevant to such an appraisal because they all are “natural” and none is anti-natural or supernatural.
The concept of duality between artificial and natural is a misnomer and is irrational which diverts the real points of contentions.

Imagination is very powerful indeed, and it is one talent which is an absolute must for creation of any kind. Many would argue that it is the most important attribute required to create, but introspection would reveal that a man must be rational first, to be able to create anything that would exist in this world. We might say that imagination gives us directions, but, it is in fact reason that leads us to having such sort of imagination.
Reason is dogmatic. Yes. Its existence requires it to be so. If there is nothing better than this place, then, I am staying here. most often mystiques have argued that the rational lack imagination, that is, they fail to notice anything new, because they have limited imagination.
It is totally baseless assertion, and it will be found through out religious scriptures when they are trying to tackle the atheistic belief.
The necessity of a God in society and the origin of him, has been expressed in many books and articles. We would just try to discuss the relation of Monotheistic God and an individual.
There are some attributes of animals which still exist with human, and one of the most potent one of them is man’s fascination with groups. Men like to form groups, like to discuss groups interests, like to serve the group, and sometimes, would give up his life for the glory of the group. Now, this has human part in it to. Man would give up his life or belongings for a group he totally identifies with, such as religion or language without much requirement of an uprising. National groupism is a refined form of this, but a man can not naturally identify with such a big and diverse group without presence of a provoking factor. This can be seen in cases of war and natural disaster.
But, as the man becomes more and more refined, he goes on understanding that he is different, different from all the rest. That everything else exists to him just because he exists. And he feels alone.
One attribute of man is that he is happy to serve. He is happy to belong, he is happy to be a part of something. Awakening leads to discovery of the fact that he, in this world is alone. And nobody likes it when it suddenly strikes them. This is what Mayavadis told everyone. That the world outside is a hoax. But that is only a part of it. No matter how much awakened one is, he can not negate the presence of himself, and that of the world. But he can say that he is free from all the rest.
How free is a man? The world is a process of rewarding and punishing. A man is accountable for his actions. So will he be free if there is no action from his side? No again, for the world has some pre-requisites for life, and everyone must fulfil them. Hence, men’s heaven dreams are always an inconsequential world and an eternal life. Man has tried, tried to negate the very requirement, the basic truth of his living.
Man serves God. Man found God in his hour of loneliness’, when he found that all of his actions were directed to nobody’s gain, he tried to find an identity by asserting, he is doing God’s work. Finding flaws in everything, he tried to find a flawless love in God. Finding his ego not letting him submit to any earthly flawed thing, he submitted to God. Submission is an essential human trait.
Man loves. Most of his loves stem from him being with things or people for a long time. The love of man is most often a consequence, rather than a decision, or submission. But, man does submit. Man submits to his fellow man when he finds those godly traits in another. When the word love stems without the proverb “despite of”. When man can search and find nothing he can criticise, he says, I am fulfilled.
But it is true that human have faults discovered sometimes or the other. And then, the temporal factor becomes the deciding one. Does a man move on fro his beloved? Should he move on from his beloved? These questions storm his mind, and he becomes lost. Most often, he makes a compromise.
But how it should be? Should a man not proceed from a place the ends of which he has found, and found them to be inferior to what he seeks for himself? Can a man not proceed to a higher goal? You would often hear this question, “Would you leave me if you found somebody better?” What do you say when asked so?
Sometimes, we find some people who would choose to walk with us, and we would agree despite knowing that he deserves better than me, or despite finding out he would soon overshadow me. Many people have jealously tried to guard such man and stagnate them to themselves, but, that bird which has found freedom, and knows the fruitless existence of a cage would be hard to tame. The cage must go. A better self must emerge. It is through journeys such, that we find movement points; we have our own search of God.
One thing to remember is God loves you. God cares for you. God that you may find and you may please will always be satisfied by what you offer and not whatever you offer.
coming back to submissive nature of human, his desires to find somebody to whom he can submit would never go away. Otherwise, he would be tormented to decay. The pleasure that submission is overshadows the pleasure of owning, pleasure of saying I am yours is much more than you are mine. To say I am yours, a man requires to own himself. To own something, he does not.
Again, love follows reason. Love would check out all the despite off features. You might ask, why there is so much of falling of there then? And the answer would be, the word eternal stinks, and your traits change and so does your demands. You would say, to find a God do we wait a lifetime?
Let me answer it. Most people exist to do things in life. They never understand what life is or what its capacities are. They die as good as any man. A few though exist, to do things with life. And finding a God and being good enough may be one of it.
Submission is bliss.

“Every morning the two ravens Hugin and Munin, are loosed and fly over Midgard; I always fear that Thought may not wing his way home, but my fear for Memory is greater.” (Translation of Grimnismal)
Thought is realization, experience, of a new situation/observation, while Memory is recurring of and old thought by virtue of observation of similar situation.
“The memory of old thought of the hidden impression is return memory of old thought of objects, which has been experienced or known.” (Translation of Sanskrit Sloka)
Are Memory and Thought are same?
Is it right to say that memory is thought?
Hugin and Munin cannot be one. Memory of Old Thoughts is Return Memory. Every cell has its structure of compressing memories. Memory of old thought of the concealed impression is return memory of old thought of objects which has been experienced or known with words. Return memory of old thought is caused by reproduction of the previous impression of an object without adding anything from other sources. However, there is always a chance for new thoughts, which is embedded in memory lane as new memory.
Hugin and Munin are two closely related entities, not the same though. Yet one can say that Memory is reminiscence, and thought is creation, or discovery of new experience to be embedded in memory lane.
In memory thought of the hidden impression, there is no tress passing beyond the object that has been thought. Return memory of thought is the memory of “seeds of deeds” which are embedded in the living beings operative system. That “program” helps the living being in developing/creating/discovering/inventing thoughts; it decides the thought pattern of the individual. The memory includes pattern of one’s language, memory of the thought blueprint of the lexis/signs that one uses and memory of one’s thought pattern of mental power.
The memory of desires/basic instinct which come up in the state of intellect of a living and non-living being and which put together ones innate inclinations also embrace memory thought of the hidden impression. The memory of persistent impressions of past continuously hang around in the mind and that decides the person’s result-oriented activities.
The basic fact is, human is incapable of having true memory of the old thought and neither he is able to reproduce his thought from memory lane in pure form. There always remains a difference between a biography and a live experience. Even while watching a cricket match live, the new impressions felt, cannot be achieved exactly same, by watching repeat of the same match. Thus, the memory of thought is not true but a false, very near to truth.
Individual’s natural proclivity is vague on the present memory of old thought. He keeps on hovering around the focus by remembering the past or daydreaming about the future recurrence of the memory of thought.
However, return of the old memory of thought or its interpretation in future is not true memory of the thought. The memory of thought, which is inconceivable with full truth and purity, not only brings unhappiness, but also brings agitation and apprehension by its effect. The incessant and cataleptic recurrence of countless memory of thought by most of human being reinforces the human being’s false appearance, biased behavior, hypocrisy, deceit, and duplicity. These phony insignia keep on changing their manner.
As long as, an individual does not manage reasonably true memory of thought about these old thought and does not vigilantly scrutinize and rationalize each memory of thought for that reason, he will persist to think and it is impracticable for him to come out of the restraints of these old memory of thought. He will become consistent to having memory of thought recur in his state of mind, which is flux. In meditation, the first step is to remove this flux and achieve a consistent unchanging non-hypocritical, unbiased reasonable true memory of thought. This memory of thought is not achievable by force, but by continuous rationalization of false-impressions of the old memory of thoughts and gaining the true memory of thought by virtue of reasoning and evidences. An individual must become cognizant of the memory of old thought, which are responsible for creating mendacity and suspicion/skepticism along with blind faith and hallucination in his flux. The vagueness that veils the truth about this memory of old thought is then to be refined and finally removed. What will remain, will be the pure thought or true memory of thought, which will be reasonable, rationale and focused. It will not be a flux, but a constant unchanging truth without any skepticism.
The false-impressions of memory of old thought of flux is refined and removed by reasonable and rationalized thinking of memory of old thought and not by any material object or power. That is, only the individual can remove that flux by introspection and reasoning. Other individual, book, or power or material cannot help him in achieving that.
Once the flux of the Impermanence State is refined and removed, the Individual achieves the true memory of thought. Then the Individual on the firm ground of non-hypocritical, unbiased, reasonable and rationale memory of thought becomes able to see further to create, develop, discover or invent new thoughts and enrich his memory lane with new experiences and set further true memory of thought.

GOD RESPONDS TO PARIS HILTON’S CLAIMS SHE FOUND HIM
Mount Sinai (AFP) Speaking in what is only His second interview in more than two millenia, God has said He wants to be categorically ‘on the record’ that Paris Hilton definitely hasn’t found him. His comments were made to Moses XLIII, the forty-third generation descendent of Moses who recorded God’s first interview.

“There’s no way Paris Hilton could have found me,” Moses quoted God as saying on his ABC television program ‘Stone Tablet News’ on Monday. “I am Almighty and I don’t just move in mysterious ways, I’m darn good at playing hide-and-seek!”

Moses said God, who sounded in fine spirits despite dwindling numbers of believers, thinks Hilton had Him confused with His only begotten son, Jesus.

 

“When Jesus was young, He was a very crafty hide-and-seek player,” God said. “Anybody who has read My book will recall the time he managed to hide from Mary and Joseph for three days and nights in a temple of all places!”

When questioned by Moses as to Jesus’ whereabouts from the age of twelve to thirty-three, God replied, “Not telling! But I will say it was rather foolish of him to have come out of hiding. We all know what that folly led to!”

God then claimed that Hilton may even have Him confused with the Virgin Mary.

“Think of it this way,” God said unto Moses. “Paris Hilton probably has never even seen a grilled cheese sandwich in her life. Prison food like that can make people see all sorts of strange things but when was the last time anybody ever saw Me burned into a grilled cheese sandwich?”

Independent sources confirm that manifestations of God have never taken any anthropormorphic form and that it’s only ever been the Virgin Mary and her Son Jesus, who have ever been seen in this form.

When asked by Moses why Paris Hilton should claim to have found Him, God replied, “Bless her, her heart’s probably in the right place but she isn’t one of My brightest creatures. Obviously, the publicity is good for Me too and goes to show that repentent sinners invariably turn to My religion when they get sent to jail and not one of those kooky new-age ones they all flock to on the outside world.”

God then scoffed at suggestions that Paris Hilton intended to give up her lifestyle of endless VIP parties, red carpets and pursuing the limelight upon her release.

“She’s obviously forgotten My omnipresence if she thinks she can tell such porkies and not get smited. Besides, the whole Rupert Murdoch empire would crumble if it wasn’t for the bubble-headed antics of celebutantes like Hilton.”

When Moses asked if this would be such a bad thing, God replied, “Of course! Rupert is the embodiment of evil on earth and without evil, there can be no free will and without free will, there can be no salvation. The whole darn Christian industry would collapse if something like that ever happened!”

 

In summarizing, Moses asked whether God believed Hilton found Jesus or the Virgin Mary to which He replied, “My money is on Mary. Hilton is, afterall, not exactly on death row. If she was, she’d have a better chance of finding Jesus but she still wouldn’t find Me — especially after just three days looking!”

Meanwhile, God took time to speak with Pope Benedict XVI after his interview with Moses.

Pope Benedict asked, “Holy Father, who do you think will win the soccer World Cup this year?”

God merely smiled and tsk-tsked the pontiff and, amid a fury of thunder and lightning, ascended back up to Heaven.

(I enjoy writing humorous pieces as much as any other kind of fiction. A style I particularly like is the fake news item, such as this.)

On the 7th May this year, it was noted that the Universe had had another orgasm. These orgasms are cataclysmic. I say that the orgasm was noted on the 7th May, but there is a wee problem. The Universe has been expanding for about 15 thousand million years; the faster parts of the big bang explosion going at close to speed of light. So any light coming from those far off reaches, can take up to 15 thousand million years to get here. The Universe has beeen orgasmating for millions of years and information is still reaching us about most of them.

These orgasms take place in stars. Even if the nearest star to us, Proxima Centauri, had an orgasm, it would take 4 years and 73 days before we knew it, because the information about the orgasm (e.g. visible light and neutrinos) takes that long to get here. As it happens, Proxima Centauri is not likely to have an orgasm, it is the gall bladder of our Galaxy. But there are stars in our Galaxy that ought to be called Ultima Clitori because they are shuddering on the brink of a humungous orgasm. If the nearest one of these actually had an orgasm, we would never, ever know about it, because the blast would vaporise the Earth before we even had time to utter the famous words:
What the fuck was that?

The orgasm that was noted last Monday, 7th May was first observed last October, but only now have the data been evaluated. Orgasm experts the world over are unanimous about this one:

“This was a truly monstrous orgasm, a hundred times more energetic than a typical one.”

“Of all orgasms ever observed, this was the Queen.”

“We were astonished to see how bright it got, and how long it lasted.”

“This was not your run-of-the-mill orgasm.”

“Gargantuan.”

“Freakishly massive.”

So when did this orgasm actually take place and how far away was it? It happened about 240 million years ago, about the time we now call the transition from the Permian to Triassic Period. Yup, dinosaur time. How far away? I could give you a big number with lots of noughts. But let me force you to imagine the scale: to some extent. The light took 240 million years to get here. Light travels at 186,000 miles per second. There are about 10 times pi million seconds in a year. Work it out. God, my brain hurts. Where is she?

If you want to know more about these orgasms, and find out how much they resemble our orgasms, then leave a tick here and I’ll tell you more. Otherwise I’ll shut up. I’ll take you through the process using language like this and hope you will share my wonder. I know of nothing in the whole Universe to compare with one of these orgasms, or rather, supernovae, as the orgasm watchers call them, except of course, my own.

The image here is of a famous supernova from 1987. Although it looks beautiful, its name is rather dull: SN 1987A. The first supernova observed in 1987 was called SN 1987A, the second SN1987B and so on. My orgasms this year have been called ORG 2007A, ORG 2007B and so on. I confidently expect, and I will explain shortly how to spot a pending orgasm, that I will very soon experience ORG 2007EA which will be:

Gargantuan.

Not my run-of-the-mill orgasm.

because . . . . . .

The Crimes Of Socialism/Communism