Sunday, August 19, 2012

Many things equal nothing

My boss sometimes asks me, “What are the jobs you are working on, now?” This question has no satisfactory answer, for two reasons: one, he is the one giving me the jobs; two, whatever you give, given the mood he is in, he would not be satisfied (and that is most of the times).

If I list out, as honest as I can all the tasks I am doing simultaneously, he cuts me short, “So, you are actually doing nothing!” And, at rare moments (like just now as I am typing this out as I have a light load) and when I have the courage, if I blurt out, “Not much,” or better, list out only one yet a significant job, his predictable response, “Oh, you are at a senior level; you have to pull your weight,” with the implication I am not.

Between the two responses there is admittedly much room to play with, but as he is the boss, he has the authority to ration space and time whimsically.

So far what I have said must not be new to both employees and bosses. But what I am going to say next, I am going out on a limb here, will be new.

How do religionists respond to questions like, “While your religion has this God who says these things, that of the others says much that are quite distinctly different. Why so?”

The unctuous response is, “God is one but He (almost always a He) manifests Himself in many forms. Hence the apparent – note the word apparent – differences. How will you understand such deep stuff?” The response is directed at me, the self-certified atheist.

Though I am the one posing the question and the religionist is responding, the functional roles are reversed vis-à-vis the boss-employee interaction – I am not the driver of this exchange. I gave the answer that I am working on many things and the boss came back that it means I am working on nothing. I gave the answer that I am working on one significant thing, he said that is insufficient. What this means is that he wants me to work on many things and be accused of not working on anything.

Now, how is the religionist responding to my question? She (this is political correctness helping me distinguish the religionist from God!) says God is one but appears in different forms. That is, she has answered both the questions that my boss throws at me. God is one. Therefore, He is pulling His weight, doing all the jobs. But simultaneously, He is multiple. Therefore, He can work on many things, again simultaneously.

The ordinary mortal that I am, do not have either of these facilities. Ergo, God exists because I exist! If I did not exist how can He differentiate Himself from me? And, if He cannot my boss will chew Him out!

Raghuram Ekambaram

4 comments:

Tomichan Matheikal said...

I think there's a point in the argument about God having many manifestations. I think there's only one God for each individual: the God one finds within oneself. God is nothing but the deepest core within oneself, the real essence. The problem is that people fail to recognise this and hence posit God out there somewhere.

mandakolathur said...

No Matheikal ... the God you define is just that, a definitional God ... the "deepest core", "real esence" as you say without telling how one knows whether he or she has reached the absolute depth ... without defining what is that "real" ... if it is objective, you cannot have multiples and if it is subjective its realm is limited ... no matter that definition is valid or not, it will not be accepted by any religion. Why? Because if your definition is accepted, God ceases to exist beyond that definition. And, most imporatntly, the concept cannot do what it has been devised for - CONTROL.

RE

dsampath said...

This is Maya
can you accept the statement that god is one and
is also multiple simultaneously
it is like whether light is a particle or wave
it is wave to wavers
and particle to particulars..
if I am a part of the whole and if I am also the whole,Then how can part comprehend the whole.

mandakolathur said...

DS sir, you ask, "[C]an you accept the statement that god is one and
is also multiple simultaneously". Let me come out and say this with certainty: No, unless you make the word God meaningless.

If that makes God a spiritual concept, so be it, but it has no purcahse on my time and efforts.

Light is neither a particle nor a wave. But consdiering them either helps in figuring out what happens under different conditions. If the God concept can help even to that extent, I am willing to put up with it. But, my experience shows that there is no point waiting for uitlity from that concept.

Best regards,

RE