Quid Pro Quo With The Gods

Pickering and Higgins? Heh! Let me reveal to you what I really am underneath that scuttling curator.

I have these little koans of life tucked away in my leather belt and rubber bracelets that I look up and chant when life seems so deliciously absurd. I am sharing with you one such endearing koan of Iravati's life-hack strategy.

There are two types of people in this world. One — who frets and reasons vociferously on how the world should be and the other — who glees and indulges in just how the world is.

Cheeniya, you know why I roost in QPQ, because of certain charming madness that has been built here that escapes the philosophical virtue of the first kind and nourishes the indomitable spirit of the second kind.

I am that second kind as Don Quixote imparts to Sancho Panza:

“When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies? Perhaps to be too practical is madness. To surrender dreams — this may be madness. Too much sanity may be madness — and maddest of all: to see life as it is, and not as it should be!”

 

Cheeniya, what a spirited inquiry!

True, what happened to those rakshasas. Were the rakshasas rounded up and locked up by the devas. Then, we must petition under the 'Rakshasa Rights Movement' and have them released. I never took to 'good virtue' and 'devas' in the world. Devas are a very tepid species. They tremble and exhalt at every uneventful birth in their clan to protect their kind. They cannot even look after themselves, desperately hooked to self-help TED shows for guidance. On the other hand, rakshas are bold and subversive and exude confidence. Rakshas are also the true connoisseurs of arts and food. Esp. food ...what do these devas know about food, blah ..tonic called amrit, but our hearty rakshas merrily praise and devour luxuriant food.

 

I like your classification of the allegedly enchanting kind.

Of course, everything that is non-QPQ is condemned as idealized philosophical leanings of the first kind.
We, the second kind, are the pioneers of ontological smatterings who study the world as it is and not as it should be.

Back ups of ancient Greek are good as long as they are NOT viciously contested — who stole from whom. Philosophy is all about what and why of our ridiculous existence. Even when that existence is skepticism and nihilism and proclamation of empty (sunya). Who said that every pursuit yields at 'nothing' first? Even this is tussled with.

"The Pyrrhonist school influenced and had substantial overlap with other schools.

Because of the high degree of similarity between the Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka philosophy and Pyrrhonism, particularly as detailed in the surviving works of Sextus Empiricus, Thomas McEvilley suspects that Nagarjuna was influenced by Greek Pyrrhonist texts imported into India."

Did Nagarjuna copy from Pyrrho or did Pyrrho steal from Nagarjuna? This is philosophy for you! Even 'emptiness is empty' makes so much disputatious noise in philosophy.

Nevertheless, he made one candle-maker very rich across his wandering years.

 

I usually don't say such things aloud but as QPQ is my nourishment in an attempt to grasp the world better with my fellow Quixote, here is my inquiry.

As a kid, I had been brainwashed with morality and probity and other peachy things of the world. My (then) moral science teacher, with the steely gaze of an African shaman could have easily turned us into Manchurian candidates and deployed as counter-intelligent Mongolian spies, droned relentlessly on moral virtues. The piggy-tailed me believed in all that flim-flam. Then came the field exposure of the 'real' world and not the virtual simulation we were wont to during training where all the hitherto unassailable precepts tumbled one by one.

"you can lie but ..."
"you can deceive under ..."
"you can subvert when .."

..you see, how ill-posed I was to deal with the rough-and-tumble world with my brainwashed and puritanical morals. Nietzsche saved me from my misplaced angst!

Where am I getting with all my Mongolian thesis? ..Well ..to start with ..there were no separate 'devas' and 'rakshasas'. There were only rakshasas in the beginning who had been rebranded as devas later. Now, we presume the rakshasas have vanished whereas their misdemeanors have only been assimilated and revised from bad to good. Today's devas were yesteryear's radical rakshasas.

Whoever has overthrown an existing law of custom has always first been accounted a bad man: but when, as did happen, the law could not afterwards be reinstated and this fact was accepted, the predicate gradually changed; - history treats almost exclusively of these bad men who subsequently became good men! — Nietzsche's The Gay Science

 

True Cheeniya Sir,
So many stories and rakshas regarding one God or behind a mythological character. I stopped to watch and read these multi versions and trying to remembering the main story that I had read long ago.

May be Bad people who are troubling innocent kids and others are the incarnations of Rakshas.