സർവേശ്വരാ! സർവ സംരക്ഷകാ ! നീ ആവശ്യങ്ങളില്ലാത്തവനല്ലേ? എല്ലാം തരുന്നവൻ? നിനക്ക് എന്നെപ്പോലെ വിശപ്പോ, ദാഹമോ ഉണ്ടോ? നീ എന്റെ നേർച്ചയ്ക്കായി കൊതിചിരിക്കുകയാണോ? ഈ ബ്രഹ്മാണ്ഡം മുഴുവൻ നീ നല്കിയിരിക്കുന്ന ദാനമല്ലേ? പഞ്ചഭൂതങ്ങളെല്ലാം നിന്റെതല്ലേ? എന്റെ ഈ ശരീരവും മനസ്സും ബുദ്ധിയുമെല്ലാം? ഞാൻ പിന്നെ നിനക്ക് എന്ത് നേർച്ച നൽകാനാണ് ? എന്നാലും നീ നിശ്ചയിച്ചപ്പോലെ ഞാൻ ദിവസവും അന്നപാനങ്ങൾ കഴിക്കുന്നുണ്ട്. ഉറങ്ങി വിശ്രമിക്കുന്നുണ്ട്. കാര്യമായും കളിയായും പലതും ചെയ്യുന്നുണ്ട്. വെറും മൺകട്ടയായ ഈ ദേഹം ഉടയുവോളം അങ്ങനെ ചെയ്യുത് കൊള്ളാനല്ലേ നിന്റെ നിർദേശം. അതുകൊണ്ട് ഞാൻ തിന്നുമ്പോൾ കുടിച്ചിട്ട് ഇങ്ങനെ എഴുതുമ്പോൾ അത് നീ നേർച്ചയായി കരുതി കൊള്ളണേ . സർവ്വ വ്യാപിയായ മഹാ പ്രഭോ! നിന്റെ പാദങ്ങൾ എവിടെ? ഞാൻ എവിടെ കുമ്പിടണം? ഞാനോ ഒന്നും അറിയാത്തവൻ. കിഴക്കും പടിഞ്ഞാറും തെക്കും വടക്കും എല്ലാം നിനക്ക് ഒരുപോലെയല്ലേ? കൈകാലുകൾ നീണ്ടു നിവർത്തി ഞാൻ കിടക്കുമ്പോൾ നീ അതിനെ സാഷ്ടാംഗപ്രണാമമായി കരുതണമേ. ഞാൻ എന്ന് പറയുന്നത് എന്നോട് ക്ഷമിക്കണമേ. അത് അഹങ്കാരപരമാണെന്നാണ് പൊതുജന അഭിപ്രായം. എന്റെ ശക്തിസ്രോതസ്സുകളെല്ലാം അഹം ബുദ്ധിയിൽ നിന്ന് പൊട്ടി ഒഴുകി വരുന്നവയാണ്. അതിനുവേണ്ടി ഈ മൺ കൂട്ടിൽ നീ ചെരുകി വച്ചതല്ലേ ആ ബോധം? എന്റെ അഹന്തയുടെ വക്തിവില്ലായ്മക്ക് ഒരറുതിയുമില്ല. എന്റെ അനുകരണങ്ങളും, ഇത്പോലെ നിത്യചൈതന്യ യതിയുടെ പുസ്തകത്തിൽ നിന്നുള്ള മോഷണവും വീരാട്ടഹാസങ്ങളും വെല്ലു വിളികളും ഒക്കെ കേൾക്കുമ്പോൾ നിനക്ക് ചിരി വരുന്നുണ്ടോ? ഞാൻ നിറെ ദാനമാണല്ലോ 'ഞാൻ' അത് തന്നെ ഒരു ദക്ഷിണയായി ഞാൻ നിനക്ക് സമർപ്പിക്കട്ടെ ? വാക്കുകൾ എന്നെ വിട്ടു പോകുന്നു . എനിക്ക് കിടക്കുവാൻ സമയമായി. മൗനം കൂടുതൽ അർത്ഥഗർഭമായി തോന്നുന്നു. ഓം അമേൻ .
വയലാറിന്റെ ഒരു പ്രാത്ഥനാ ഗാനത്തോടെ ഞാൻ ഉപസംഹരിക്കുന്നു. നിത്യ ചൈതന്യയതി എന്റെ ഈ പ്രാർത്ഥന കണ്ടു കുഴപ്പം ഉണ്ടാക്കില്ല എന്ന് കരുതുന്നു. അതവാ ഒച്ച വച്ചാലും എനിക്ക് ഒരു ചുക്കും ഇല്ല
If for a scientist truth is based on tests and
experiments and hypothesis validation, science has never proved the existence of
God with hypothesis or tests. Einstein’s belief is his personal belief based on
his knowledge and experience. My faith in Jesus is based on my knowledge and
experience. Jesus forgiven the lady caught in adultery and can forgive your
sins if you are ready to repent and accept Jesus. For my opinion on Budha,
Prophet Muhammad etc and the truthfulness of Bible, please read my books-
Metamorphosis of an Atheist, Bibilinte Daivikatha- Vimarsananghalkkulla
Marupadi and Upasana. When a person make a statement there must be supporting
evidence for it. What is said about Jesus and Josephus is putting words in
their mouth if you study the statements they made. Some of the comments here
start with general criticism of religion and end up with specific criticism of
one group- Christian priests and bishops (CEO). They will not name the Imam’s
or Melsanthi of temple even though they also live the same life with the money
given by its members. Politicians also live by tax money. I do not see such
criticisms against them. Bible says not to put ‘Mukhakotta for the working bull
as it has to live by its work. Same way politicians and Bishops are to live by
their work. Is it an agenda to create ill will between bishops and members? In
the Old Testament when the land was divided among the twelve tribes, the
priestly class was not given any land as other tribes for their income. They
were to live by what people give. This tradition is followed in all cultures up
to this time. Priests and Bishops can’t go and do any work like others do to
take care of their personal needs as it has its own dignity. It is the
responsibility of the church members to take care of them to keep that dignity,
and at the same time prevent misuse. A person outside the church has no
business here to create ill will. I have read several reports of RSS agenda to
weaken the church by creating ill will between it members and leadership. If
the church is thus weak and disorganized it is easy to control it by passing
legislation against its members. I see all this propaganda against priests and
bishops as part of this agenda.
Sanil Gopinath2016-01-24 15:27:11 NewsCongrats and Good Luck.
posted by andrew2016-01-24 15:04:31 News(Re-posted here from the Huffington Post November 21, 2015)
If you cherry-pick scientific truths to serve cultural, economic, religious or political objectives, you undermine the foundations of an informed democracy.
Science distinguishes itself from all other branches of human pursuit by its power to probe and understand the behavior of nature on a level that allows us to predict with accuracy, if not control, the outcomes of events in the natural world. Science especially enhances our health, wealth and security, which is greater today for more people on Earth than at any other time in human history.
The scientific method, which underpins these achievements, can be summarized in one sentence, which is all about objectivity:
Do whatever it takes to avoid fooling yourself into thinking something is true that is not, or that something is not true that is.
This approach to knowing did not take root until early in the 17th century, shortly after the inventions of both the microscope and the telescope. The astronomer Galileo and philosopher Sir Francis Bacon agreed: conduct experiments to test your hypothesis and allocate your confidence in proportion to the strength of your evidence. Since then, we would further learn not to claim knowledge of a newly discovered truth until multiple researchers, and ultimately the majority of researchers, obtain results consistent with one another.
This code of conduct carries remarkable consequences. There's no law against publishing wrong or biased results. But the cost to you for doing so is high. If your research is re-checked by colleagues, and nobody can duplicate your findings, the integrity of your future research will be held suspect. If you commit outright fraud, such as knowingly faking data, and subsequent researchers on the subject uncover this, the revelation will end your career.
It's that simple.
This internal, self-regulating system within science may be unique among professions, and it does not require the public or the press or politicians to make it work. But watching the machinery operate may nonetheless fascinate you. Just observe the flow of research papers that grace the pages of peer reviewed scientific journals. This breeding ground of discovery is also, on occasion, a battlefield where scientific controversy is laid bare.
Science discovers objective truths. These are not established by any seated authority, nor by any single research paper. The press, in an effort to break a story, may mislead the public's awareness of how science works by headlining a just-published scientific paper as "the truth," perhaps also touting the academic pedigree of the authors. In fact, when drawn from the moving frontier, the truth has not yet been established, so research can land all over the place until experiments converge in one direction or another -- or in no direction, itself usually indicating no phenomenon at all.
Once an objective truth is established by these methods, it is not later found to be false. We will not be revisiting the question of whether Earth is round; whether the sun is hot; whether humans and chimps share more than 98 percent identical DNA; or whether the air we breathe is 78 percent nitrogen.
The era of "modern physics," born with the quantum revolution of the early 20th century and the relativity revolution of around the same time, did not discard Newton's laws of motion and gravity. What it did was describe deeper realities of nature, made visible by ever-greater methods and tools of inquiry. Modern physics enclosed classical physics as a special case of these larger truths. So the only times science cannot assure objective truths is on the pre-consensus frontier of research, and the only time it couldn't was before the 17th century, when our senses -- inadequate and biased -- were the only tools at our disposal to inform us of what was and was not true in our world.
Objective truths exist outside of your perception of reality, such as the value of pi; E= m c 2; Earth's rate of rotation; and that carbon dioxide and methane are greenhouse gases. These statements can be verified by anybody, at any time, and at any place. And they are true, whether or not you believe in them.
Meanwhile, personal truths are what you may hold dear, but have no real way of convincing others who disagree, except by heated argument, coercion or by force. These are the foundations of most people's opinions. Is Jesus your savior? Is Mohammad God's last prophet on Earth? Should the government support poor people? Is Beyoncé a cultural queen? Kirk or Picard? Differences in opinion define the cultural diversity of a nation, and should be cherished in any free society. You don't have to like gay marriage. Nobody will ever force you to gay-marry. But to create a law preventing fellow citizens from doing so is to force your personal truths on others. Political attempts to require that others share your personal truths are, in their limit, dictatorships.
Note further that in science, conformity is anathema to success. The persistent accusations that we are all trying to agree with one another is laughable to scientists attempting to advance their careers. The best way to get famous in your own lifetime is to pose an idea that is counter to prevailing research and which ultimately earns a consistency of observations and experiment. This ensures healthy disagreement at all times while working on the bleeding edge of discovery.
In 1863, a year when he clearly had more pressing matters to attend to, Abraham Lincoln -- the first Republican president -- signed into existence the National Academy of Sciences, based on an Act of Congress. This august body would provide independent, objective advice to the nation on matters relating to science and technology.
Today, other government agencies with scientific missions serve similar purpose, including NASA, which explores space and aeronautics; NIST, which explores standards of scientific measurement, on which all other measurements are based; DOE, which explores energy in all usable forms; and NOAA, which explores Earth's weather and climate.
These centers of research, as well as other trusted sources of published science, can empower politicians in ways that lead to enlightened and informed governance. But this won't happen until the people in charge, and the people who vote for them, come to understand how and why science works.
Neil deGrasse Tyson, author of Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier, is an astrophysicist with the American Museum of Natural History. His radio show StarTalk became the first ever science-based talk show on television, now in its second season with National Geographic Channel.
മാദ്ദവൻ പിള്ള . NY 2016-01-24 14:18:44 NewsBJP is spreading religious hatred and so all educated people has to come out and fight it. I & my relatives studied in a Christian school. we never looked at another one differently. We live in a mixed community in NY. Most of us don't see the other differently because of their religion. I was born in a hindu family but i don't have any religion. I know many like that. we have people of all different religions and we all get together once in a while, eat the same food. we are all happy.
Babu Parackel2016-01-24 13:10:30 Newsഅനുഗ്രഹീതമായ കേരളം! നാം ഇതൊന്നും കാണാതെ മെക്സിക്കൊയിലും സൌത്ത് അമേരിക്കൻ ദ്വീപുകളും തേടി പോകുന്നു. ഈ പടങ്ങൾ കണ്ടിട്ട് കണ്ണെടുക്കാൻ തോന്നുന്നില്ല. 99 എപിസോടുകളിൽ കൂടി കേരളത്തിന്റെ കാണാത്ത സൌന്ദര്യം വായനക്കാര്ക് കാട്ടി തന്ന ലേഖകന് നന്ദി. 100 എപിസോഡുകൾ പൂര്തിയാക്കുന്ന അവസരത്തിൽ ഹൃദയപൂര്വമായ ആശംസകൾ!
Joseph Padannamakkel2016-01-24 13:10:07 Newsമഹാത്മാഗാന്ധിജിയെപ്പറ്റി ലേഖനം പൂർത്തിയാക്കിക്കഴിഞ്ഞാണ് ഐൻസ്റ്റിനെപ്പറ്റി ഒരു ലേഖനം എഴുതണമെന്നുള്ള ആശയം എന്റെ മനസ്സിലുദിച്ചത്. ഈ ലേഖനം പൂർത്തിയാക്കിയതും 'ഈ മലയാളി' പ്രസിദ്ധികരിച്ച ദിവസം തന്നെ. ഐൻസ്റ്റീനെപ്പറ്റി സാമാന്യ വിവരങ്ങളുള്ളവർക്കെല്ലാം ലേഖനം ആവർത്തിച്ചതായി തോന്നും. 'ഈ മലയാളിയിൽ' ഈ വിഷയം ചർച്ചക്കായി ഒരിക്കലും ഞാൻ കൊണ്ടുവന്നിട്ടില്ല. ലേഖനത്തോടു സഹകരിച്ച എല്ലാ വായനക്കാർക്കും എന്റെ നന്ദി. ഇവിടെ എഴുതിയവരെല്ലാം നല്ല അറിവുള്ളവരുമാണ്. അവർക്കെല്ലാം എന്റെ അഭിനന്ദനങ്ങളും.
Observer2016-01-24 11:34:28 NewsWhy specially this BJP convener involved for this. IF this a India Govt or Indian consulate pravasi devasi, it shoiid be organized by the real community organization not by any particular BJP group, not by any particular political group. So, question them. Protest against this type of partisan activity. This is illegal. Question in the Indian Parlement. Boycot this type of activity for personal gains of any particular political or personal gain. Write article against this type of activites naming the Govt. It is wrong. Boycott and protest.
വായനക്കാരൻ2016-01-24 10:27:51 Newsബാണാസുരസാഗറിനെക്കുറിച്ച് ആദ്യമായാണ് കേൾക്കുന്നത്. നല്ല വിവരണവും ചിത്രങ്ങളും. നന്ദി.
വായനക്കാരൻ2016-01-24 10:17:22 Newsഓവർസീസ് ഫ്രണ്ട്സ് ഓഫ് ബി. ജെ. പി‘? ഇനിയിപ്പോൾ കേരളത്തിലുള്ളതിനെക്കാൾ കൂടുതൽ ജില്ലാതല ബി. ജെ. പി സംഘടനകളും നേതാക്കളും ഇവിടെ പൊട്ടിമുളക്കും.
For a scientist, truth is based on experiments, tests and
how it supports their hypothetical statement. And, Einstein’s statements on God are based on
the above truth defined above“Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and
you will find that behind all the discernible (Visible) laws and connections,
there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration
(respect) for this force beyond anything, that we can comprehend is my
religion. To that extent I am in fact, religious.” He admits that there is something subtle,
intangible and inexplicable. But, he doesn’t believe that, that ‘intangible and
inexplicable’ is a God “: who would
directly influence the actions of individuals or would sit in judgment on
creatures of his own creation.” He never claims that he is all-knowing and
expressed that many times in the chapter seventeen of the book ‘Einstein, His life and universe by Walter Isaacson.”
Matthulla puts words into
the mouth of the people and he interprets things according to his whims and fancies. His world is the kingdom ruled by Jesus and
those who believe in him. He believes
that there is a life after death, it doesn’t matter how you screw it up here in
the world, for thousand years with Jesus in his Kingdom. Was exactly that Jesus meant with his
statement when he made that there is a life after death? Nobody knows but that
is how people with lack of thinking was made to believe by people like Mathulla;
and, that is misinterpretation. It is clearly
evident in the statement Matthulla made, that all the statements made by people
like Buddha, Mohamad, and others are all misinterpretation or a lie after many
years repeation except the statements of Jesus even though it was made by
thousands of years ago. He categorically
denies or reject that the statements of Jesus was not twisted, distorted or misinterpreted
by anyone though it is believed to be written by many uneducated people in Aramaic
language. By his statement he also
rejects the fact that the translation of Jesus’s statement from its original
language to different language was not compromised the integrity of the
There is nothing wrong in
repeating an article like this many times and drawing the attentions of the educated
people who are not influenced by the all-knowing theologians and can think
freely. I know there are many freely
thinking people out there who reads this.
Rather than the onlookers of this debate be a part of it. The wars, displacements of families,
dictatorship, injustice, oppression, suppression and imbalance in wealth and terrorism are the products of misguided teaching
and controlling the mind of ordinary people.
According to the Historian Josephus, Jesus was an ordinary person like
Gandhi or Abraham Lincoln but he was labeled as a miracle worker and son of God
and taken out of the society by the wicked religious Masters. He was a reformist who wanted a balanced life
for all. He taught the people to tap
into their own spiritual strength. He
was a scientist who made the hypothetical statement about a new world and an
order and showed how to achieve it. His
fate was nothing different from others who sought equality freedom for fellow human
beings. And, it is no wonder the crooked
religious joined with the political power crucified him on the cross. I urge people to go back read the history, by
throwing out all the religious interpretation and individual interpretation,
under the light of free thinking.
I thank you Padannamackel for bringing back this article
and publishing it. Hope you are good in
spirit and sound in health.
love india2016-01-24 09:46:15 NewsIn India, freedom of speech is curtailed. Any one who speaks against the government or prime minister will be attacked by the BJP-ABVP activists. Supporters of them in the US is trying to take advantage here. It should be opposed. will the BJP leaders in the US stand for freedom of speech?