Introduce myself? as "absurd" as that??? well...

If I introduce myself I start with: I am Haribol Acharya. What else should I say about myself? The background? The career? The beleif I hold? What else?

This is all bull****! Nothing else. I do not know myslef. How could I know. All I know is I am the son of....Belong to a partiuclar religion...come of a background....have roots in...hold faith in Go....or I am an atheist. These all are baseless arguments and if i introduce myself with al these stuffs I will be doing injustice to no else but to myself. A am not all this stuff.

If you really, impatiently want to know about me I am a Nepali if you have heard of Nepal, a Himalayan nation. To say more, I am a Hindu. I am a seeker. Of what ...the question may popu up. Of everything. Of wealth. Of love. Of relationship. Of knowledge. Of the secret of my beingness or of the secret of the creation of this universe and finally of the purpose why I am here, existing fleetingly.

Everybody has this question. The question of what stuff she or he is. Like what relationship one has, as some materiallists say one is simply an occurence, a temporary even and goes wound up after a while. No trace will remain, likened to a ripple or a tide in this vast and ever expanding cosmic soup. But spiritualists have diffeent notions and arguments, for they argue that man is the same thing, the micrcosm of this cosmic consciousness and will not be finished with death.

Swirling this endless whirlpool of ideas I take it but differently. I do not like tio side with materialsm and with spiritualism. For both make assumptions and these arguments are groundless and unfounded. They lead us astray, and confound us unnecessarily. Despite the fact that I am not leaning on materalistic approaches, at times i find them more kind of honest compared with hypocratic spiritualists or religiolsy minded vainglorious individuals. These Gurus say one thing and do another, and give lessons and amass wealth and preach one thing in the foreground and do clandestinely somethinjg in the background. i can not beleive them.

my soul does not leap up when I see Great Monuments. I went to see Tajmahal. The grandeur of it has no parallel or no match, really something tour de force. Yet i feel deep down every brick used to erect this great piece of art is drenched with the sweat and blood of countless workers. They might have been ruthlessly forced to work and many could have been dead while working. From this angle where is the regality and majesty of the monument?

There has been too many injustice to humanity and history is guilty of it, and the whole cycle of history is run from one end to the other with classes between the mighty and the weak. Yet i am not a communist or do not agree totally with Marx alone despite the fact that there were elements of truth in his argument about the description of histoy.

Should I be conclusive? No I can not say Jesus was really a prophet or the Buddha was really an enlightened one. I can not say they were not either. I swing between these two extremities enldlessly.

Notwithstanding the fact that the world is impermanent and everything even celestial bodies are subject to rise abd fall or birth and death. Man is a sheer star dust amidst a million stars, constellations and gallaxies in this infinity, yet man does not feel that low. Maybe size is not all that important. Maybe there is something subtler than physical size. Man, forgetful of all these keep himslef engaged in things that remind him of immortality.

Life is no doubt tragic if we see from one dimension; there is hatred, partition, division, divorce, killings, war. These things affirm the fact that humanity is sinking; man is totally under stress. The other dimension is obscured, but I see deeply and profoundly the other part of man. In every man, even in the eye of the murder there is something, a kind of sensitivity. I am firmly convinced of the fact that it is sheer environment, nothing else account for everything man is, good or bad. I do not beleive in free will at all. There is no free will. Let us think about a child, and whatever corcumstance cicumscribes him he reflects the same, good or bad. There is no abosolute good and bad. Everything here is relatively true not absolutely true.Killing an animal is a sin from one perspective and from another it may be not a sin may be a duty. for one kills to feed his fellow beings.

Can we eat without killing somethig, a life?

One of the points at issue herein is that despite that there is violence, combat, war and all the rest of vices, yet we can not completely deny the fact that there is mutual understanding , cooperation and understanding, love and compassion.

Among the most brutals and cunniest there are some elements of kindness, some unseen, not apparent.

Leave this all. The point is despite the fact that there are sufferings and tragedies, yet life is sweet and living is something interesing amd enthralling. This is a mystery that amidst tortures, torments there is love, understading and value.

Finally, my favorite bookls and writers. Not specific genres of writers. I at times read theological books, the Upanishads, the Bible and at times I find Einstein and Darwin highly engaging.