ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

The PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING

Updated on March 15, 2017
 Sunrise over sea ice near the North Pole
Sunrise over sea ice near the North Pole | Source

The PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING aims at a NEW world .

Humans see the light of day the same way as canines and felines do. Nevertheless, of course it doesn't become humans, beings superior to all other beings, to lead an existence as beasts do. As I see it, it becomes humans, and it makes sense too, to live a healthy and meaningful life. I know no sensible humans who refuse to see eye to eye with me on this point. But in order to lead a healthy and meaningful life, you need have a clear concept of the principle of healthy and meaningful living ( PHML ). The purpose of this essay is to throw light on the PHML, its significance, and help you differentiate between what is right and what is wrong in the light of this principle.

Humanity is still way too uncivilised to match up to the twenty-first century, as I see it. This is the space age, you know, and there are no end of man-made satellites moving round the earth. This is also the age of the World Wide Web that has brought the whole world on your PC's monitor inside your private room, isn't it ? The main reason I view humanity as far too uncivilised as yet is the fact that humanity has yet to get rid of ever so many barbarian institutions, such as private property ( this institution is responsible for the social division into the haves and swarms of the have-nots ), marriage & family as well as travesties of marriage & family ( they're barbarian, both in historical sense and in essence, and based on the private property ), commodities, the filthy lucre, economic inequality ( it owes its origin to, along with private property, the exploitation of man by man, et cetera, the very basic law of the commodity economy too, not to the qualitative distinctions, as the silly believe, between humans ), the exploitation of man by man, et cetera, et cetera. All these institutions originated during transition from the middle stage to the upper stage of barbarism, the prehistorical epoch that preceded civilisation. Civilisation is the historical epoch that made barbarians, after they had entered it following the final stage of barbarism, undergo a constant, prolonged, and gradual process of transformation from the barbarian state into the civilised humans. This process has yet to be complete. Humanity, as I see it, is still far behind the stage that, after it has arrived at this stage, would make it deserve to be reckoned civilised through and through.

As I see it, humans of this space age behave as if they're outright unaware that human beings are superior to all other beings. The cultures they love to indulge in and the way they behave suggest that they've never heard of the PHML before, nor does this stuff make any sense to them. None of the few I've been able to interact with on the Web and outside so far have avowed their stance on the PHML. The way they've reacted when confronted with this principle disgusted me as much as it astonished me. Not only did it expose their helplessness in the face of as innocent something as the PHML, it also showed many a well-educated human of the space age has yet to attain the level of enlightenment that would endow them with the backbone they need in order to face up to the truth. To date I do not know a single human that has vowed to stand for the PHML, nor do I know one that has professed to be against it. Nevertheless, I'm also an indomitable optimist. I believe most humans would prove themselves sensible someday and fall in with my view on the PHML and join in with my mission in life aimed at enlightening the humanity and thus helping the humanity transform itself into truly and fully civilised humans. And I don't think this optimism is unfounded or unrealistic. The history of civilisation holds abundance of evidence to show this position of mine to be true.

a bald eagle flying in the blue sky
a bald eagle flying in the blue sky | Source

The PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING aims at a NEW world—a world where life is far freer than the eagle flying in the blue sky.

[ What is the principle of healthy & meaningful living ? ]

my view of the PHML & my rationale for it

[ PHML stands for Principle of Healthy and meaningful Living ]

The PHML aims at the FREE world .

And the free world of my vision is aimed at ensuring as much freedom for everyone as possible within limitations of the time they belong to. And your freedom in accordance with the PHML is defined as freedom to take part in an act or a practice that doesn't clash with the interest of society or harm the just interest of another individual or your freedom to do something that doesn't add up to the violation of someone else's legitimate rights. Thus, by the PHML, you're at liberty to engage or indulge in any culture or practice as silly as matrimony or a travesty in the name of matrimony is or cherish as silly a belief as belief in God or belief in stuff like homoeopathy, astrology, etc is, regardless of whether the PHML approves of such stuff or not, but you're not allowed to force anyone to take part or believe in such things against their will, nor can you be allowed to hinder anyone willing to engage in such things from doing so. You'll be as free to get married or indulge in a travesty of a marriage as to stay single or be a regular visitor to brothels in the free world, as I envision it ; nevertheless, you won't be allowed to compel an unwilling person to get married or stay single or stop a willing one from visiting brothels. Women and girls will be free to choose between matrimony ( or a travesty of it ) and prostitution or any other means of living they can avail themselves of in the free world at issue. The PHML accepts your complete freedom to eat or forbear from eating any food ( beef, chicken, hog meat or some other similar stuff ), but it forbids you to force anyone unwilling to eat or stop a willing one from eating such stuff.

The free world of my vision won't allow of discrimination on the grounds of caste, class, colour, creed, race, sex, sexuality, your marital status or whether you're born in wedlock or out of wedlock; in short, the free world won't allow you to discriminate or to be discriminated against on the grounds of something neither you're nor anyone else is to blame for or something you have right to choose.

The free world of my vision shall be free of all coercion by the state or any other group or individual to make you do or not to do something you have legitimate right not to do or to do. It shall also be free of coercion by any group or individual to force the state into doing something it has right not to do.

The PHML disapproves of your addiction to drugs, drink or tobacco as well as overindulgence in any stuff, be it wholesome or not wholesome nor unwholesome within limit.

The PHML requires you to lead a healthy, both physically and mentally, and meaningful life. In order to remain healthy and strong, you have to avoid all unwholesome food and stuff like alcohol, tobacco products, narcotics and all such things that lead to addiction or morbidity. Overindulgence in or addiction to relaxation, wholesome or not-unwholesome tasty food, entertainments or pleasures is also in conflict with the PHML, as I see it. Therefore, if you're for the PHML, you have to avoid both unwholesome indulgences, be they addictive or non-addictive, and overindulgence in anything notwithstanding it is not bad. Nevertheless, at this point I feel one point should be made clear in this regard, namely what follows.

The PHML is not opposed to ease, pleasure, and luxury in life.

Rather, the PHML outright disapproves of asceticism and abnegation as well as the Gandhian principle of plain living. You've got truly nothing meaningful to derive from all such stuff. Human beings are superior to all other beings. Of course we are not born to live an ascetic or a plain life the poor and penniless are forced to live, are we ? The expensive flats in awesome high-rises, magnificent cities with metalled roadway and mosaic pavement, at night illuminated by brilliant halogen and fluorescent lighting, beautiful houses with sumptuously-furnished dazzling-beauty rooms with painted-luminous walls and ceramic-tiled floors, luxurious toilets, CF lamps, LED lights, fashionable clothes, matt-leather jackets, glossy shoes, countless varieties of sweet and savoury dishes, expensive medicines and therapeutic techniques to cure malignant disease and disorder, X-rays, ultrasonography, MRI scans, super-speciality hospitals, LPG stoves, microwave ovens, induction heaters, washing machines, fridges, air conditioners, colour TVs, smartphones, notebook computers, de luxe cars, mega airliners, giant ships, and so on and so forth of course aren't meant for beasts ; nor are all these meant for the evil or the debauched, the way I view it, right ? Nevertheless, showing off your possessions to humiliate others doesn't fit in with the PHML, as I see it.

The PHML is opposed to your life of ease, pleasure, and luxury purchased with easy money made through illicit means and practices.

The reason is so simple and evident.

The PHML doesn't approve of making money through illicit means and corrupt practices.

Thus, theft, robbery, forgery, smuggling, swindling, drug peddling, human trafficking, bribing, taking bribes, et cetera, et cetera are in outright conflict with the PHML.

The PHML disapproves of both begging and giving in response to begging.

Begging is in my view the lowliest living a human has recourse to after they've got rid of all sense of self-respect and thus turned into the lowliest and most inferior humans. And the mightiest argument against obliging beggars is that it tempts humans to turn into beggars.

The PHML always stands for the truth and wants you to be truthful.

The truth is all-mighty. The truth gives you strength. The truth enlightens you. The truth is invincible and inescapable. The truth, and the truth alone, leads you out of the darkness of ignorance. The truth makes you advance down the path of life. The truth leads you to success.

The PHML, however, doesn't disapprove of white lies.

Lying also performs a most significant role in life. Your concept of the PHML would remain seriously deficient without your awareness of the significance of lying in life and the right attitude towards lying.

To begin with, not all lies belong to the same category. Lies we tell in order to avoid hurting feelings of a friend or a beloved one are as innocent as silly lies uttered playfully by naive nursery kids. Just opposite are lies meant to cheat or hide the truth about your wrongdoing. White lies a doctor utters in front of a critically ill person in order to keep the latter in the dark about their true condition as they might have a terrible shock leading to a massive heart attack if they learnt the whole truth about their condition are evidently outright different from lies an offender tells with view to misleading the law and escaping the penalty they deserve. Lies you tell in self-defence to mislead your enemies or lies a CID officer utters in order to hide their identity from criminals can't be classified as the same as the lies a rapist tells in order to conceal his commission. As I see it, there should exist no disharmony between lies not meant to derive any unfair advantage from them and the PHML. I believe lies are so inseparable from life that life without lies appears to be the unrealistic fantasy of the silly. And the PHML doesn't clash with white lies and other lies meant to have your enemies fooled or lies a girl resorts to in order to escape the clutches of a gang of rapists. Nevertheless, the PHML does disapprove of lies you tell in order to hide your misdeeds or benefit unfairly by lying.

The PHML requires you to lead a meaningful existence .

In order to make your life meaningful, you must make a sensible task your mission in life and live to accomplish this mission. Doctors and nurses fighting to save disease to save human life lead a meaningful life. Pacifists, environmentalists, human rights activists, journalists and good lawyers striving to throw light on corruption and crime and thus bring culprits to book, et cetera each are leading a meaningful existence, to my way of thinking. You may join in the mission to seek the truth and enlighten the humanity by sharing the truth you've discovered with all others and thus make your life meaningful. You may also join in the mission to throw light on the limitations of the humanity and focus everyone's attention on culture and customs that do not become the civilised humanity, and thus you may lead a meaningful existence becoming a truly enlightened and truly civilised human. And you mustn't engage in any culture, such as matrimony or a travesty of matrimony, that is in conflict with the PHML.

The PHML requires you not to disrespect, as a general principle, the statute law of your country.

Nevertheless, you're at liberty to criticise and condemn any legislation or rule if you feel it deserves to be treated thus. The PHML doesn't disapprove of your participation in the peaceful civil disobedience aimed at focusing the national and the international attention on certain issues.

The violation of human rights, encroachment on other people's privacy, and denying the freedom of speech & pen to someone are in general in outright disharmony with the PHML .

The expression ' in general ' in the above statement suggests that there may arise at times certain situations which might demand and deserve to be treated as just exceptions to this general principle. For example, interests of society are paramount, we know. Say you engage in an illicit practice, such as hoarding black money or forging banknotes inside your bedroom, and thus jeopardise the economic base of society, hence threaten the very survival of both the society and the state, would it be wrong for the state, acting for the society, to break into your bedroom in order to catch you red-handed ? The abuse of power by the powerful, say some unprincipled police officer or a corrupt ruling-party functionary, is of course a matter of grave concern. Nevertheless, it can't be a sensible idea to disapprove of the proper action by the law or some other lawful authority to stop such unlawful activities for fear of the abuse of power by some unprincipled, corrupt personnel in authority. There should be, as effective safeguards against the abuse of power, watchful and alert watchdog-bodies of human rights activists, to my way of thinking. We're living in a violent era. This is the era of terror and war against the terror. There's no difference of opinion over the fact that terrorism in our time has reached alarming proportions so that no human life is safe and secure today. As I view them, terrorists personify inhumanity and everything else that is evil. They're non-humans in the human form and have little respect and love for any human life including their own. They're callous people that revel in indiscriminate homicide and committing suicide with a view to killing innocent humans. They stop at nothing and you won't be wrong to expect them to go any length and resort to any means in order to achieve their goal of killing and getting killed. They carry lethal arms and ammunition under their garments and inside false bellies and false breasts. They travel in disguise and hide themselves among innocent guys who they use as human shield. This makes the war against terror a most tough job, as I see it. It's not for nothing that the state overhears your conversations over phones and reads your e-mail messages without your knowledge or makes you stand, before boarding a plane, in front of a scanner to be sure that you aren't carrying any weapons. If we don't want to lose the war against terror and be dictated to and ruled by those nasty beastly terrorists, we've got no other option than to approve of such unpleasant acts by the lawful authorities. Snowden, I'm afraid to say, failed to take note of this big point. He's certainly in the wrong. Acts like his are certain, it's too obvious to be missed, to help terrorists, not the war against terror, to my way of thinking.

Ground Zero
Ground Zero | Source

There stood, at the Ground Zero, the twin towers of the world Trade Center, the 110-storied, awesome skyscrapers, and the American pride, before two giant passenger flights were hijacked and made to crash head-on into them on September 1, 2001 by some Al-Qaeda men, consequent on which fact the twin towers caught fire and became aflame in no time. They both fell to the ground eventually. In all 2 753 innocent men and women were killed in the shocking incident that focused the world attention on the gravity and danger of terrorism, and thus it led to the launch of the war against terror. The PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING disapproves outright of all acts of the senseless, callous butchering of people by terrorists.

The PHML is fundamentally opposed to terrorism .

Terrorism has no respect for dissenting voices and views. It demands that everyone unquestioningly accept and follow the dictates of terrorists. By this doctrine, anyone that refuses to acquiesce in their views has no right to live. The way I view it, terrorism is the doctrine of blood and violence.

ISIS brutality
ISIS brutality | Source

ISIS brutality knows no bounds. The photo above shows an instance of bone-chilling terror acts of the ISIS terrorists. The masked men standing behind their helpless captives robed in saffron, and forced to kneel down before them, belong to the ISIS, a terrorist outfit. The captives in the photo are awaiting their execution. The ISIS men revel in killing people by cutting their throats open with sharp knives or beheading them with swords or by firing pointblank at their heads. They also revel in watching people being burnt to death or drowned alive. The PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING aims at a FREE world supposedly free of all such inhuman beings in human form as terrorists are .

The PHML is always for constructive criticism .

Constructive criticism is aimed at shedding light on the limitations and fallacies of an unsound or unrealistic view and thus enlightening people about their mistakes.

As the enlightened know, it's the conflict between views and counterviews that leads us to the truth. We're blind to our own faults and mistakes. Nevertheless, we're smart enough to detect other people's faults. This shows you how significant constructive criticism and debate are. If you disallow the freedom of speech and pen and thus silence dissenting voices, you're unlikely to ever know of your own limitations and mistakes and thus you'll block the road to your own enlightenment. The freedom of speech and pen you need first and foremost for your own enlightenment, as I see it.

The PHML wants you not to show disrespect to any person even though their views you consider silly and detestable .

You're free to attack any views or remarks, not the person holding such views nor the person that passed such remarks. The PHML disapproves of using abusive terms or passing rude remarks while criticising or commenting on such views or remarks. Nevertheless, the PHML doesn't approve of any legislation treating rude but-but-nonabusive remarks as penal offence. The main point against such legislation is it's very likely to be abused in order to silence dissenting voices.

The PHML disapproves of all cultures, beliefs, faiths, and practices that do not rest on sound logic or facts .

Thus, belief in God, gods, or ghosts, belief in religion and religious rites and rituals, idolatry, palmistry, astrology, homoeopathy, acupuncture, ayurved, alternative medicine, and other similar stuff which each are just a load of rubbish, from the perspective of an enlightened human, are in conflict with the PHML. The concept of an omnipotent God is just a piece of the silly and benighted. The enlightened know it's the truth, not God, that happens to be all-mighty. And the main drawback of the idea of God the Creator is the fact that nothing but nothingness can emerge out of nothingness. Sir Isaac Newton also believed in God the Creator, but he forgot outright to throw light on how God created the great big universe with billions of stars, planets, moons, meteors, comets, black holes, pulsars, quasars, nebulae, et cetera, et cetera out of the infinite vacuum. Nevertheless, Albert Einstein who discoveredE= mc2 outright dismissed the Newtonian God the Creator. According to Einstein, the universe cannot have a ' Creator ' because it was never created— the universe, as Einstein believed, existed all along and will exist for all eternity ; it is without beginning or end, and hence cannot have a ' Creator ' or a Destroyer. The god aswell as the ghost is also, as the enlightened view it, the fruit of a flight of fancy befitting the silly and benighted.

' Faith is stronger than reason, ' says the silly. But the enlightened know the faith is little more than a set of unscientific, ridiculous ideas and beliefs. Faith isn't enlightening ; nor does it have an answer to any problems relating to life or the universe, be it the accumulation of wealth at one pole leading to the pauperism of billions at the other or the phenomenon of global warming or the social pollution due to the barbarian institution of matrimony ( the poor and vulgar marry and procreate just to swell the army of the poor and vulgar and the gang of the antisocial and terrorists, and thus they pollute the society ).

Christianity preaches universal love and forgiveness, which means Christianity wants you to love and forgive both the good and the bad, i.e. all the innocent along with the culprits such as thieves, robbers, murderers, smugglers, abductors, gangsters, druc peddlers, girls traffickers, child abusers, Mafiosi, extortionists, rapists, terrorists that pumped shot into Malala, the ISIS gunmen that committed the Paris massacre, et cetera, et cetera. Thus, it ought to be obvious to every sensible human now that the Christian faith is truly the path that is certain to lead the human civilisation to extinction. And what does Buddhism truly teach ? Buddha's principal teaching is life is a boundless sea of grief. Therefore, Buddhism asks its followers to seek nirvana , the Buddhist variety of suicide, meant to escape the life that has got nothing but no end of sorrow and suffering for you.

Islam preaches jihad and mut'a , you know, and Islam is also known for its feminophobia*. ( * fear of the female ) Islam is so afraid of literate, free girls that it has asked its followers to spray acid, in order to punish girls that love freedom and learning, onto their faces and riddle them with bullets. And jihad means killing innocent humans, young and old, male and female, and both kafirs and non-kafirs ( i.e. those Muslims that refuse to bey dictates of jihadis). And mut'a is the Islamic name of what you know as prostitution.

And as I view it, Hindutva ( Hinduism of today ) means barnashram, the nonsense called idolatry, worshipping beasts ( e.g. the holy cow and Hanuman, the monkey god ), and banning beef eating. The enlightened view barnashram as something that not only is a downright falsehood but is an affront to the humanity, as well. And Hindutvaites love and respect beasts like cows and hanumans more than humans— so much so that they might even kill you if they can know you eat beef or do not worship Hanuman.

L:ike palmistry and idolatry, none of astrology, homoeopathy, acupuncture, et cetera are sensible or scientific, as the enlightened view them.

The PHML is opposed to discrimination on the grounds of something the person discriminated against happens to be not responsible for or something they definitely have right to choose .

Stuff like your caste, colour, class, race, sex, and sexuality ( i.e. whether you're straight or gay ) is something you're not to blame for. You're not to blame, either, for whether you were born in lawful wedlock or out of lawful wedlock. Further such stuff has nothing to do with what sort of a man you are in essence. It happens to be, as I see it, your education, erudition, attainments, achievements, calibre, your intelligence, wisdom, experience, expertise, shrewdness, your attitude to life and the universe, your attitude to gay sex, whether you're a rationalist or an irrationalist, whether you're a believer or an unbeliever, whether you're progressive or reactionary, whether you're for terrorism or for the war against terror, whether you're a pacifist or against pacifism, whether you're racist or non-racist, whether you're sexist or against sexism, whether you're a man of principle or a rank hypocrite, whether you're for matrimony or a travesty of matrimony or whether you're against both of matrimony and the travesty in its name, whether you're for free love or not for free love, whether you're for relishing sex or for leading a sexless life, whether you're pro the recognition of gay marriage or against it, whether you're pro or not pro the environment-friendly policies and mode of life, whether you're an egalitarian or against egalitarianism, whether you're for free trade or against it, whether you're a communist or a democratic socialist, whether you're for or against outsourcing, whether you're a true communist or a pseudo-communist, whether you're for democracy or dictatorship, whether you're for the freedom of expression or against it, whether you respect free thinking or disrespect it, whether you've got the backbone to face up to the truth, the whole truth, and the brute, naked truth, whether you respect the principle of healthy and meaningful or not, whether you're for the free world or against it, et cetera, et cetera that make up your true self and show your true colours, and it's your true self that truly matters. Nevertheless, your attainments, achievements, wisdom, et cetera along with your outlook, your stance on matrimony, gay sex, capitalism, communism, et cetera belong to the category of the stuff you ought to have the legitimate authority to choose. Therefore, none of these happens to be a justifiable basis, from the perspective of the PHML, for subjecting you to discrimination. Nevertheless, if you choose to stand for terrorism and act to help bring about the defeat of the war against terrorism, the state must act, in accordance with what the society has authorised it to do, to thwart your evil design.

The PHML outright disapproves of barnashram .

As I view it, barnashram is the Vedic racism. By barnashram, humans are born superior or inferior, and your education and all other attainments, your all achievements, your outlook, your life principle, et cetera, et cetera, in short, everything that truly contributes to your true self matters nothing in the matter of your superiority or inferiority in relation to others, which means an illiterate or a barely literate Brahmin* is, just because he was fathered by a Brahmin*, superior to a learned man or even a genius like a Nobelist who happens to be a non-Brahmin. Not only is barnashram plain wrong, it also happens to add up to an outright insult to the entire human race, as I view it.

[ *a guy belonging to the highest caste or barna by barnashram. ]

The PHML is opposed to racism too.

Like barnashram, racism is also an outright false doctrine and an insult to the humanity. It's not your race or barna but some other stuff that contributes to what you are in essence, your true self.

The PHML calls for the abolition of the economic inequality.

Historically, the economic inequality is traced back to the prehistorical epoch preceding civilisation, namely barbarism. It's precisely the period between the middle and the final stages of barbarism when the institution of private property arose, and it happens to be private property with which the social division into the propertied few and swarms of the non-propertied was effected. Swarms of the born poor are born poor because they were fathered by the born poor, the non-propertied billions. Evidently, the born poor are NOT to blame for their poverty and privation. Contrary to what the silly believe, the economic inequality, the poverty of billions worldwide, or the concentration of wealth at one pole leading to mass pauperism at the other does NOT owe its origin to the qualitative distinctions between humans, between the talented and the mediocre, or between the work done by a skilled hand and that done by the unskilled but to private property, the commodity economy, the exploitation of man by man, the institution of matrimony, et cetera. The economic inequality reflects the very basic law of the commodity economy. The commodity economy or the production and exchange of commodities, the private property, the exploitation of the non-propertied class by the propertied class, et cetera are all traced back to the same period of time, i.e. the period of transition from the middle stage to the final stage of barbarism. It ought now to be clear as day to the sensible that the economic inequality as well as the division of society into the rich and the super-rich few alongside of billions of the born poor happens to be, both in historical sense and in essence, a hundred per cent barbarian. As the born poor, the exploited billions, and the underprivileged, are not to blame for their poverty, deprivation, and the pitiable socioeconomic position, for the same reason the born privileged, the rich and the super-rich, do not deserve any credit for their high, enviable status just because it isn't attributable to any good work or creditable achievements of theirs. Thus, it follows that not only is the economic inequality a legacy of prehistorical barbarism, it also happens to be the origin of, from the perspective of the sensible, the gravest and greatest, as I view it, social injustice.

The conflict between the economic inequality and the PHML is abundantly clear, isn't it ?

a homeless person lying on a street in Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A.
a homeless person lying on a street in Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A. | Source

Such ugly sights, as the one above, of destitution and distress alongside of plethora and extravagance are quite common in India, a poor and overpopulous country of vulgarians and ignoramuses. But in America, the most advanced civilisation of the world, and the super power ?!! From the perspective of The PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING, such silly and disgusting things are outright unbecoming of a civilised nation.

Being born poor in order to be exploited and to sweat blood to produce all wealth and luxuries, as beasts of burden have to do, not for yourselves but for a few idlers, the rich and the super-rich, who happen to lead, before your silly eyes, a fabulous lifestyle, a life full of fabulous riches and luxuries, while you yourselves lead a hard and humble existence, an existence full of poverty, privation, and deprivation, of course do not fit in with the PHML.

a homeless Hamburger (  Hamburg is a German city. )
a homeless Hamburger ( Hamburg is a German city. ) | Source

Another silly, disgusting sight of poverty and privation alongside of affluence and extravagance. The Principle of Healthy and Meaningful Living is outright opposed to such things.

Leading a life of luxury in full view of the silly billions, the hard-working humans, who produce all wealth and luxuries but lead a hard and humble existence themselves of course doesn't fit in with the PHML.

Being driven by the insatiable craving for wealth and to live in order to accumulate wealth and to regard wealth and the accumulation of wealth as the sole end and aim of life of course do not fit in with the PHML.

Neither the exploitation of man by man nor being exploited fits in with the PHML.

Like the institution of private property, the social division into the propertied few and the non-propertied multitude, the born poor and underprivileged* fathering the born poor and underprivileged, et cetera, the exploitation of man by man is also traced back to barbarism, the prehistorical epoch preceding civilisation. It also happens to be a barbarian culture, both historically and in essence. The main argument against the institution of exploitation of humans by humans is the fact that not only does it lead to the accumulation of wealth at one pole to create swarms of the poor at the other, it also perpetuates thus both itself and the economic inequality. It ought also to be clear to the sensible that by perpetuating itself and the economic inequality, the institution of the exploitation of humans by humans perpetuates the greatest and gravest social injustice as well. The exploited, or the born poor and underprivileged, are NOT to blame for their pitiable socio-economic position which, as I see it, is rightly to blame for the fact that they have to consent to be exploited by the propertied and privileged. It's NOT their fault that they were born poor and underprivileged, is it ? NOR is the advantageous socio-economic status of the born rich and privileged the outcome of their good deeds or due to any creditable achievements of theirs, right ? I view such things as the greatest and gravest social injustice.

If you are for the PHML, you cannot stand for a social order that is based on the exploitation of humans by humans, nor can you accept a situation that compels you to consent to being exploited by some human.


[ * I do not find the Oxford's definition of ' privileged ' acceptable. By ' the underprivileged ' , I mean all those who do not belong to the privileged class that is comprised of the rich and the super-rich. By the COED ( 11th ed., revised ), those ' not enjoying the same rights or standard of living as the majority of the population ' deserve to be termed the underprivileged. But ' the majority of the population ' are composed of swarms of the poor and the penniless that definitely do not enjoy ' the same rights or standard of living as ' the rich and the super-rich do. Therefore, the underprivileged who, by the above definition, must be a minority cannot consist of swarms of the poor and the penniless. But, the minority in a capitalist society are comprised of the rich and the super-rich. You cannot label the rich or the super-rich underprivileged unless you wish to be labelled crazy, can you ? ]

The PHML is opposed to both the institution of private property and the institution of matrimony .

I've already pointed to the prehistorical origin of private property, matrimony, the exploitation of man by man, the economic inequality, et cetera. The institution of private property effected the social division into the propertied class and the non-propertied class. Children fathered by the non-propertied are born poor and underprivileged and for this reason, have to consent to being exploited by the born rich and privileged. The institution of the exploitation of man by man leads to the concentration of wealth in the hands of the exploiting class, the born rich and privileged, and thus helps them grow richer, which means the born poor grow poorer and poorer. The institution of private property along with the exploitation of man by man perpetuates thus both the social division into the propertied, the exploiting class, and the non-propertied, the exploited class, and the exploitation of man by man, and thus it perpetuates the most grave social injustice, namely the fact that the exploited, the born poor and underprivileged,were born poor and underprivileged not because of any faults or failings of theirs, but because they were fathered by the born poor and underprivileged, and because they were born in a society that permits such things as private property, matrimony, the exploitation of man by man, etc. The institution of matrimony rests on private property, and so it happens to be essentially the exploiting-class institution. Not by any manner of means can it be labelled a non-propertied-class or exploited-class culture. A true marriage is meant to produce an inheritor of ' undisputed paternity ' who is destined to inherit his father's property in due course. Evidently, the non-propertied's marriages are without any logical basis and without any sensible purpose, the way I view it. Further, matrimony is basically antifeminine, and its antifeminine attribute is clear as day from the fact that its primary purpose is the production of children ( precisely, male children ) of ' undisputed paternity ' , the achievement of which demands that the mother of the children be cut off from all men other than yourself because as long as she remains accessible to any other man, you cannot know for sure who the true father of her kids is. The brute fact is matrimony just turns into a farce if the paternity question is allowed to remain unanswered. Obviously, a true marriage happens to be the imprisonment of the woman. Therefore, half the sky have got nothing meaningful to derive from matrimony. Men are lamentably lacking in the capacity they must be possessed of in order to make worthy husbands. I define a worthy husband as the guy that has the capacity to ensure the social and financial security of his wife and children as well as a decent lifestyle for all of them, decent upbringing of the kids, and decent livelihood of the grown-up kids. But a man is not a lion of a man. Man is a social being, and the individual happens to be insignificant vis-à-vis society. Every individual, bar the 1 per cent and the super-rich 80, is badly dependent for their own survival on social succour and support. An individual's capacity is too limited to make them match up to their matrimonial duties and obligations. The unpleasant truth is in marriages, the innocent ( the wife and children of an unworthy guy ) suffer, as matrimony is based on a guy's individual capacity, for all faults and guilts of not theirs but of someone ( the unworthy guy that indulges in the luxury of marriage ) else's. Another unpleasant truth about matrimony is it plays no meaningful role in society or the state.

a girl in her wedding attire
a girl in her wedding attire | Source

The grandeur of matrimony appears great on the surface. Nevertheless, on careful study, it cannot escape the sensible's notice that matrimony truly happens to be, both by origin and in essence, a one hundred per cent barbarian culture. For this reason, it fails to harmonise with the PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING, as I see it .

The PHML disapproves of your indulgence in the luxury of a travesty of a marriage as well.

Like a true marriage, a travesty of a marriage does not play a meaningful role in society or the state either. Nor does it serve any meaningful purpose in an individual's life. Like a true marriage, a travesty of a marriage has got nothing truly meaningful for half the sky either. In a travesty of a marriage too, the innocent ( the wife and children of an unworthy guy ) suffer for no faults of theirs but for all faults and failings of someone ( the unworthy guy that indulges in the luxury of the travesty at issue ) else's. Further, travesties of marriages ( i.e. the stuff the poor and vulgar indulge in in the name of matrimony ) swell both the army of the poor and vulgar and the gang of the antisocial, and thus they pollute the society.

The PHML is NOT opposed to prostitution ; NOR does it disapprove of your visiting brothels.

Prostitution is an honest and society-friendly trade. Prostitution doesn't add to the army of the poor and vulgar ; nor does it swell the band of the antisocial. Rather, on the contrary, it helps reduce both the number of the poor and vulgar and the antisocial. Visiting brothels with a view to gratifying your desire is healthier, from the perspective of the PHML, than playing with yourself. The WHO, a UN body, is also for giving prostitution its due respect and recognition.

The PHML does not view gay sex as criminal.

From the perspective of the PHML, the right view of gayness or gay sex is it happens to be innocent natural aberration. It causes no harm to any individual or to society or the state.

The PHML does not view transsexuality as criminal.

Like gayness, it also happens to be innocent natural aberration, from the perspective of the PHML.

The PHML does not approve of gay marriage.

From the perspective of the PHML, gay marriage is a travesty of a marriage because by no definition of matrimony, it deserves to be reckoned a true marriage. Matrimony is essentially heterosexual, isn't it ? Nobody knows of what meaningful or sensible purpose the gay marriage serves in an individual's life or in society or the state, right ?

The PHML is always for democracy.

I am not aware of any sensible reason that weighs against democracy in favour of autocracy or plutocracy.

the Stars and Stripes
the Stars and Stripes | Source

The Stars and Stripes represents the most advanced civilisation of the world, which is also the only superpower, both economically and militarily. But does this superpower deserve to be recognised as civilised through and through yet ? What the sensible find most disconcerting is the disgusting fact that the only superpower, like all the rest of the world powers, is still disgustingly lacking in the BACKBONE needed to stand up straight, with its head held erect, in front of the PRINCIPLE of Healthy and Meaningful Living, something as harmless as the full moon in the night sky, something so powerless as to be incapable of hurting even a breastfeeding baby. So powerless, yet NOT in the least powerless ! The mere thought of facing up to it makes Yanks feel a chill running down their spines.

Capitalism fails to harmonise with the PHML.

Capitalism has a lot of pluses. Capitalism means universal education. Capitalism means girls' education and employment too. Capitalism means progress and plethora. Capitalism means democracy, adult suffrage, welfarism, secularism, egalitarianism, no to racism, no to sexism, feminine freedom ( freedom of feminine sexuality included ), et cetera, et cetera. Capitalism also means huge progress of science and technology : awesome high-rises, telephones, TVs, computers, smartphones, satellite communication, E= mc2 , fission-fusion bombs, nuclear power, X-rays, ultrasonography, MRI scanners, organ transplantation, IVF, test-tube babies, cloning, cyclotrons, creation of matter and antimatter, rockets, spaceships, the exploration of space, et cetera, et cetera* bear evidence of this fact. Nevertheless, capitalism has also a lot of negative points. And what happens to be the most serious of all its faults and failings is in my view the accumulation of wealth at one pole to create swarms of the poor at the other. I view it as the most serious fault of capitalism because it happens to be its very basic fault and for this reason insoluble.

The economic inequality reflects the very fundamental law of the commodity economy, and capitalism is essentially a commodity economy. Hence, it follows that capitalism and the economic inequality are inseparable just as a woman and her femininity or matrimony and its antifeminine attribute are. And it being the fundamental law of capitalism, the economic inequality can't have an answer under capitalism. Another basic aspect and negative point, as I view it, of capitalism is the fact that it happens to be based on the exploitation of man by man. The capitalist's profit, the production and appropriation of which is the direct aim and determining motive of the capitalist mode of production, happens to be in essence what we call the surplus labour ( or unpaid labour ) the labourer must perform and give the capitalist gratis. The more the amount of surplus labour is, the more the capitalist's profit grows. Evidently, the profit at issue is both an expression and a measure of exploitation. The capitalist mode of production being aimed at extracting the greatest possible amount of profit ( i.e. unpaid labour ), it is in fact the mode of exploitation of the poor billions to the utmost, as I view it. Therefore, capitalism means being born poor in order to be exploited and sweating blood to produce a plethora of wealth and luxuries not for yourselves but for the rich and the super-rich and sillily watch those few idlers lead a life full of fabulous riches and luxuries while you yourselves, i.e. the swarms of the born poor, who happen to be producers of all wealth and luxuries, live to lead a hard and humble existence throughout your whole life.

The economic inequality that symbolises what I view as the greatest and gravest social injustice has got NO answer under capitalism. Capitalism means the exploitation of man by man to the highest degree. Capitalism means the disgusting fact that the hard-working billions who produce all wealth and luxuries live in reality a hard and humble life themselves and sillily watch the few idlers, the rich and the super-rich, enjoy all the expensive goods and luxuries produced by them by the sweat of their brow. Capitalism also means the abominable reality of as few as 80 guys known as the super-rich possessing as much wealth as half the total global population ( i.e. 3.5 billion-strong crowd of the poor ) together do. Further, capitalism is also ill known for NOT opening its lawful roads to riches to the poor but luring them into resorting to illicit means and practices meant to make easy money and thus corrupting the poor and the penniless and making them run the risk of being found out and ending up in prison. The disharmony between the PHML and capitalism is clear as day now, isn't it ?

* I do not mean they're capitalistic in essence. I just want to say all these inventions, discoveries, and achievements have been made in the era we call capitalism.


The PHML stands for communism .

Communism aims at the classless society. In the classless society, you won't encounter none of the exploiting class, the exploited, the propertied, the non-propertied, the privileged, the under-privileged, et cetera, et cetera. There will be none richer nor anyone poorer, none more privileged nor anyone less privileged, and none more powerful nor anyone less powerful than you in the classless society. Communism means no exploitation of man by man. Communism means no economic inequality. Communism means no private property, no commodity economy, hence no concentration of wealth at one pole accompanied by legions of the poor and the penniless at the other. It's communism, and communism alone, that can rid the humanity of the disgusting reality of 1% possessing as much wealth as the remaining 99% together do or as few as 80 super-rich guys possessing as much wealth as the 3.5 billion-strong army of the poor and underprivileged do together. Communism is also free of all allurement meant to lure you into resorting to illicit means and practices meant to make easy money and thus make you risk yourself being found out and ending up in prison. Therefore, it's communism, and communism alone, that can rid society of all evils of capitalism and thus create a social environment conducive to healthy and meaningful living, the way I see it.

society's responsibility to women & kids & men : What does the PHML dictate ?

Women don't need kids. Procreation is a mere luxury for both men and women, isn't it ? The inescapable truth is it's society and the state that need their manhood and womanhood indulge in procreation because no procreation means no children, and no children would mean the non-existence of the human race, with which both the society and the state are certain to disappear, after all the members of a certain generation have passed away. Obviously, it's the society and the state that truly need, for their survival, a woman's children, and for this reason, they also need both women and men as no women will mean no children, and as women can't conceive without men. And as it's society that needs children for its survival, the society is under undeniable moral obligation to assume full responsibility for its every member and every kid, the way I see it. The civilised society cannot deny its responsibility to ensure social and financial security of every man, every woman, and every child belonging to it. It must ensure equally decent lifestyle* of everyone and equally decent upbringing* of every child as there happens to exist no good reason why society should treat one as more equal or less equal than another. And after kids have grown up and finished their education and training, it's the society's responsibility to find each of them equally decent work*.


*Decent work is decently paid work. In a capitalist order, there exist distinct pay and income differentials that make a line of work or a lifestyle look more decent or less decent than another. As capitalism without pay and income differentials as well as the overwork of a section of the workforce alongside of a lot of others without work is outright mythical, it's impossible to ensure equally decent lifestyle of everyone and equally decent upbringing of every child as it's impossible to find equally decent work for everyone willing to work in an unequal capitalist society. Nevertheless, the communistic classless society is free of all such stuff as the pay and income differentials and the problem of joblessness too, and so it's communism, and communism alone, that happens to be the only answer to all these problems at issue. This is one more argument against capitalism and in favour of communism, to my way of thinking.

The PHML is NOT meant for the SILLY ; NOR is it meant for the SPINELESS.

The PHML is meant for the sensible that are endowed with the backbone they need be in possession of in order to confront the truth, the truth that might appear to you the most unpleasant, the most naked, and the most merciless. The silly that cannot see, or pretend not to see, the truth that is glaring before their very eyes are NOT those the PHML is meant for. The silly that cannot see the silliness of their beliefs and practices, such as the belief in God or gods, or the belief in the holiness of matrimony, or the silly that can see nothing WRONG with what happens to be, as I view it, the greatest and the gravest social injustice, namely the loathsome fact that the fact that in an unequal society, millions come into the world as poor and underprivileged to work hard as beasts of burden do and to be exploited by the rich and privileged few that come into the world as rich and privileged to exploit the former and live a fabulous lifestyle before their silly eyes while they, i.e. all those that sweat blood to produce all wealth, lead a hard and humble existence themselves throughout their life is NOT attributable to any faults or failings of theirs NOR is the fact that the rich and privileged few are born rich and privileged attributable to any noble or creditable acts or achievements of theirs are NOT those the PHML is meant for.

The PHML is NOT meant for the SPINELESS either. Although it really and truly happens to be, as it appears, as harmless as the full moon in the night sky or the sweet smell of an aromatic rose is and so powerless as to be incapable of hurting even someone as helpless as a breastfeeding baby is, yet NOT in the least powerless — such is the PHML, as I see it. An incontestable evidence of this most intriguing phenomenon is the disgusting fact that even the most advanced civilisation which is also the only SUPERPOWER , in both the economic sense and the military sense of the term, of the world of today is deplorably lacking in the BACKBONE it need possess in order to stand up straight, with its head held erect, before this humble PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living. The mere thought of facing up to it seems to make a Yank feel a chill running down their spine.

The PHML disapproves outright of PESSIMISM.

Civilisation began with slavery. Society was then divided into a few masters and swarms of slaves, the former having the latter under their thumb. Women were enslaved by men and treated as chattel. Democracy, universal education, adult suffrage, feminine freedom, egalitarianism regardless of caste, class, colour, race, and gender, freedom of expression, et cetera were all stuff unheard of even in the Middle Ages, you know, but not today. The ancient times of the civilisation was followed by the Dark Ages ( c. 500- 1100 AD ), the Dark Ages by Renaissance ( 14th to 16th centuries ), and Renaissance by the Enlightenment of modern times. The ancient slavery is today a thing of the distant past. The barbarian institution of matrimony ( barbarians institutionalised the imprisonment of women by means of matrimony ) has undergone a lot of change, since when it came into being, to turn farcical in the present day. Women in advanced civilisations are free today. All advanced civilisations recognise and respect relationships outside of marriage and children coming into the world in consequence of such relations. Both the haves and the have-nots as well as both boys and girls have got free access to universal education. Working women are entitled to equal pay for equal work along with their male colleagues. Democracy as well as the freedom of speech and pen is, bar a few exceptions, the order of the day today. We've learnt to respect liberty, fraternity, and egalitarianism. Science, technology, and welfarism have ensured the food security of the poorest of the poor. The life of humanity is far better than the sort of life humans of the past were used to living, isn't it ?

The way I see it, the crooked, the silly, the benighted, and the reactionary alongside the honest, the sensible, the enlightened, and the progressive existed before ; they still exist, and will exist in days to come. The enlightened, sensible, and progressive have kept the wheel of history rolling forwards. It is to their credit that the world human civilisation has made huge progress since the ancient times or the dark days of the Dark Ages, and I believe it'll keep advancing for all eternity.


Therefore, the PHML asks you, as it asks every sensible human who falls in with this view of civilisation and civilised humanity, to make the PHML your life principle and join in the mission of transforming the humanity into truly and fully civilised humans and thus transforming your world into a new and far better one. The PHML wants you to hope, as an unbeatable optimist does, to win over all the sensible humans of the world to your side someday.

Dilemma of an enlightened human : What does the PHML suggest ?

Capitalism with all its pluses and minuses is truly incapable of creating a social environment that you can expect to make it possible for you to live a healthy and meaningful life. Why I think so should be clear to the sensible if they went through the sections titled Capitalism fails to harmonise with the PHML and The PHMLstands for communism . But the problem is transition to communism is a great big task that calls for the active involvement of the majority of the politically active citizens in it. Nevertheless, the situation in the present-day world is plain disappointing, as I view it. Most parts of our globe are either underdeveloped or developing. By the theory of communism, transition to communism from underdeveloped or undeveloped capitalism is just not possible. In order to accomplish the transition to communism, you need a huge body of the proletariat comprising almost all of the workforce, most of whom must be enlightened, politically, and well-organised, which might be available only under developed capitalism. The brute fact is we don't encounter such a proletariat yet even in the USA, the most advanced civilisation of today, where capitalism is the most developed . The level of enlightenment the American proletariat have attained so far leaves a lot to be desired. They still believe a certain, undefined level of inequality is good for the economy. They still either seem to be outright ignorant of or find nothing wrong with the fact that the economic inequality reflects the very basic law of the commodity economy or the fact that the disgusting reality of 1% being in possession of as much wealth as the remaining 99% together are or as few as 80 guys known as the super-rich possessing as much wealth as half the total global population ( i.e. 3.5 billion-strong crowd of the poor and the penniless ) together do doesn't owe its origin to the qualitative distinctions between humans or between the work done by one and that done by another. They also find nothing wrong with the exploitation of man by man or with being born poor to be exploited or with the fact that the poor and underprivileged are born poor and underprivileged or the fact that their poor and pathetic socio-economic position is not due to any faults or failings of theirs, nor is it true that the high socio-economic status the born rich and privileged enjoy is not attributable to any good deeds or commendable achievements of theirs. They don't seem to be aware that the economic inequality symbolises gross social injustice, and that the exploitation of man by man, the commodity economy, the private property, the social division into the born poor and underprivileged and the born rich and privileged, the institution of marriage and family, et cetera perpetuate the social injustice at issue. They have yet to learn of the significance of and yet to learn to respect the PHML. There is no true communist party in the USA or Europe of today, to my knowledge. Such being the state of affairs, every sensible and enlightened human that respects the PHML is confronted with a dilemma, the way I see it. The PHML is opposed to asceticism as well as the Gandhian principle of plain living. The PHML is all for a life of ease, pleasure, and luxury providing it's not purchased with illicit easy money, and providing it's not meaningless nor unhealthy. Nevertheless, the PHML does disapprove of leading a life of luxury before the silly eyes of the hard-working humans that produce all wealth and luxuries but lead a hard and humble existence themselves. Therefore, the sensible and enlightened have got no other option than to make a move to get rid of capitalism and welcome communism that ensures your and everybody else's equal access to social wealth and equal standard of living for all. But switching over to communistic order is just not possible in today's world for reasons stated above. Workers of America and Europe, let alone workers of the rest of the world, are way too unenlightened and way too uncivilised to respect the PHML and welcome communism, as I see it. The naked truth is it's the poor and underprivileged alone, and none else, who happen to be to blame for their pathetic plight in the twenty-first century, for the brute fact that they're still subjected to the gross social injustice that is economic inequality, and for the brute fact that humanity have yet to get rid of the obnoxious barbarian cultures like the exploitation of man by man, the commodity economy, the private property, and the institution of matrimony which are responsible for the perpetuation of the gross social injustice the humanity itself, bar the insignificant few of the rich and the super-rich, has to undergo. The naked truth is swarms of the poor and underprivileged that make up the overwhelming majority of the human race worldwide are not opposed to the exploitation of themselves by the rich and privileged . The naked truth is the poor and underprivileged are, even in the twenty-first century, so big fools that they aren't even aware of their numeric strength. In a democratic polity, notwithstanding the fact that you have the freedom of expression and right to vote, it's disgusting that the poor and underprivileged even in the advanced civilisations have yet to make a sensible move meant to rid themselves of capitalism, a move that should inspire some respect for the hard-working people that produce all wealth and luxuries by the sweat of their brow but lead, like beasts of burden, a hard and humble existence themselves throughout their life. Under the circumstances, if the rich 1% and the super-rich 80, evidently an insignificant minority, resolve to put an end to the exploitation of man by man and switch over to the communist mode of production, their move is certain to prove futile, to my way of thinking. It'd just lead to their supersession by altogether new crowds of the rich and the super-rich, and worse, the rich and the super-rich guys of today would find themselves among the swarms of the born poor and underprivileged.

Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar, an Indian Cricket Legend, and a Bharat Ratna, once earned Rs 200 million or over $ 3.3 million ( $ 1 = Rs 60.00 ) per TV ad per annum.
Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar, an Indian Cricket Legend, and a Bharat Ratna, once earned Rs 200 million or over $ 3.3 million ( $ 1 = Rs 60.00 ) per TV ad per annum. | Source

Sachin feels he needn't feel ashamed that his earnings per annum per TV ad was over three times the worth of a Nobel Prize ( in 2015 ). I think he may justifiably say in his defence : ' Why on earth should I feel ashamed of myself when Nobel laureates don't feel ashamed of themselves for such silly things ? '

Dilemma of an enlightened human : ... ( continued )

Giving away your wealth following the example of Bill Gates, the former Microsoft CEO, and the one-time richest guy, looks great. Nevertheless, if examined critically, its silliness becomes obvious to the sensible. As I see it, the economic inequality or its extreme form, what they call ' Extreme Wealth and Inequality ' , is an expression of the very basic law of the commodity economy, and capitalism is essentially a commodity economy. Therefore, the concentration of wealth in a few hands at one pole leading to the creation of swarms of the poor and the penniless at the other is irresistible under capitalism.

Bill Gates, an American business magnate, and a billionaire
Bill Gates, an American business magnate, and a billionaire | Source

Bill is not a communist. He's not opposed to economic inequality on principle, but he's got a peculiar sense of ethics that disapproves of the concentration of so much wealth in a person's hands. Never ever did he care to define what level of the concentration of wealth at one pole he thinks not-unethical, and he doesn't seem, either, to have the wisdom he need have in order to be able to comprehend that the absence of such a definition makes nonsense of his stance. Nevertheless, neither Bill nor Sachin happens to be to blame, as I see it, for the poverty and privation of the silly billions.

Dilemma of an enlightened human : ... ( continued )

It's the mode of production and exchange that matters. As I view it, so long it'd remain the capitalist mode of production and exchange, all the wealth you give away are certain to find their way back into the hands of the rich or the super-rich after some time. There's no way to prevent this eventuality. Then, what's the use of giving away ? Does it make sense to give away your all only to see someone else grow richer and to see yourself swell the ranks of the penniless in the dole queue or the silly wage slaves, the born poor and underprivileged, who aren't ashamed that they are born poor and underprivileged, who find nothing wrong with the fact that they are born poor and underprivileged not because of any fault or failings of theirs or the brute fact that they have to consent to being exploited by the born rich and privileged just because they are born poor and underprivileged , who aren't ashamed of indulging in the luxury of marriage and procreation knowing very well that their children would come into the world as the born poor and underprivileged and end up poor and underprivileged, and who aren't ashamed either of watching sillily some idlers, the born rich and privileged, to lead a fabulous lifestyle, a life full of fabulous riches and luxuries, while they themselves lead a hard and humble existence throughout their life notwithstanding they're aware that it's them, the born poor and underprivileged themselves, who produce, by the sweat of their brow, all wealth and luxuries the born rich and privileged enjoy before their silly eyes ?

Equally silly and ridiculous is to choose the Gandhian principle of plain living, the way I view it. Like Christianity, this principle is also certain to show the humanity, if all the affluent turn Gandhists and begin to practise what they preach, the road leading to the extinction of the human civilisation. The reason is simple. This is the era of capitalism ( welfare capitalism, precisely ) we belong to. Capitalism presupposes, for its survival, the existence of an ever-expanding market, and the ever-expanding market presupposes, for its existence, ever-growing demand for commodities ( goods and services produced in the capitalist mode of production ). But the principle of plain living means the outright disappearance of the demand and with it the outright disappearance of the market, which means the death of capitalism, the way I see it. The reason why I think so is by the principle of plain living, almost all industrial products of today, the entire showbiz, and almost all modern athletics including the Olympics are evidently undesirable luxuries, evils of life. They're evils of life because you need a lot of cash to purchase such luxuries. But under capitalism, lawful roads to riches are too few to meet your need while there happens to be no dearth of the allure of easy money through illicit means and practices, and there's no telling you won't succumb to such allure of capitalism, be nabbed by the law someday, and end up in prison. All mega cities, smart cities, and other modern cities, sky-high skyscrapers, handsome flats, eye-catching houses, painted-luminous rooms with glazed doors and windows, luxurious toilets, ceramic floor tiles, sumptuous furniture, five-star hotels, magnificent restaurants with varieties of tempting tasty cuisines, fashionable shirts, suits, jeans, leggings, hot pants, bikinis, briefs, and bras, pearl necklaces, diamond ear rings, gemmed gold rings, fashionable shoes, sandals, and slippers, countless cosmetics, perfumes, body lotions, soaps, and shampoos, sanitary towels, viagra, de luxe condoms ( sex for pleasure is in conflict with the principle of plain living, isn't it ? ), the IVF techniques, test-tube babies, X-rays, ultrasonography, MRI scans, organ transplantation, open-heart surgery, super-speciality hospitals, fridges, TVs, washing machines, air conditioners, radios, phones, computers, super computers, smart phones, mercury-vapour lamps, halogen lamps, CF lamps, LED lights, bikes, cars, buses, trains, airliners, speedboats, ships, cement plants, steel plants, chemical plants, power plants, rockets, satellites, spaceships, space stations, space exploration, et cetera, et cetera run athwart the principle of plain living. Gandhiji himself gave up wearing shirts and undergarments on his torso, but he used to wear a dhoti that was too long and large to fit in with the principle he preached ( a dhoti is a great deal larger and longer than the piece of cloth he truly needed to cover his loins ). And, I've heard, he didn't believe in medical science and scientific medicine either. Therefore, I can't see any good reason why it ought not to be clear to the sensible that the Gandhian principle of plain living happens to amount to the outright rejection of the space-age science and technology and going back to the age of bullock carts rolling down muddy paths, dim oil lamps, earthen pots, et cetera, et cetera.

Ours is a capitalist society. Its economic basis is capitalistic in all respects. Therefore, death of capitalism means the death of our society too, hence the death of all of us too. As long as it happens to remain capitalist, it's not sensible to do anything that clashes with the interest of capitalism because what is against the interest of capitalism is against the interest of society too, You may replace capitalism, if you don't like it, with some other system better or worse than it. But before accomplishing it, any act that is harmful to capitalism would be silly and suicidal, as I see it.

The affluent aren't responsible for the fact that you belong to the silly crowd of the born poor and underprivileged. The affluent aren't responsible either for your ignorance of who or what are truly to blame for your poor and pitiable plight. You can't blame the affluent for the silly fact that you don't feel ashamed of being born poor and underprivileged in order to be exploited. You can't blame the for your ignorance of the brute fact that the exploitation of man by man along with private property, matrimony, commodity economy, and the capitalist mode of production and exchange perpetuates your poverty and thus perpetuates the conditions that press you and all the rest of the born poor and underprivileged into consenting to being exploited by the born rich and privileged. You can't blame the affluent for your ignorance of the fact that the born rich and privileged are an insignificant minority vis-à-vis the born poor and underprivileged who, by the strength of their mere number, ought to have freed themselves of their wage slavery long since in this era of democracy, to my way of thinking. It disgusts me that in this space age, the overwhelming majority of the humanity find nothing wrong with the brute fact that being born poor and underprivileged, they're truly born victim of a grave social injustice unbefitting of civilised humans. Under the circumstances, I don't think it'd be wrong of an affluent person respectful to the PHML to lead a life of ease and luxury providing the ease and luxury isn't purchased with illicit money, and providing his or her life has got a meaningful purpose.

Nobelist Jules Hoffmann ( he was awarded the Nobel Prize 2011 for his contribution to medicine )
Nobelist Jules Hoffmann ( he was awarded the Nobel Prize 2011 for his contribution to medicine ) | Source

The truth of the matter is even the Nobelists find nothing WRONG with, NOR do they feel ashamed of, the ridiculous reality we witness in every capitalist order, namely the fact that even a champ sportsperson or a movie celeb happens to be disgustingly wealthier than great people like them. An inventor of a life-saving therapeutic technique that saves so many human lives worldwide or an environment-friendly technology, a Nobelist economist or physicist, etc, that is geniuses whose work and achievements have led to and lead to the empowerment of humanity and the progress and development of human civilisation the whole world over, show no sign of shame over the fact that people like a champ sportsperson, a movie superstar, or an underworld don lead a fabulous lifestyle, a life full of fabulous riches and luxuries, in full view of silly billions, Nobelists and other geniuses included.

[ concluding remarks ]

significance of the principle of healthy & meaningful living


The PHML is meant to help you stay healthy, both physically and mentally, and make your existence meaningful. As I see it, civilisation is a historical epoch that followed barbarism, the prehistorical epoch that immediately preceded civilisation. Nevertheless, barbarians that just entered the epoch civilisation from the last stage of barbarism of course didn't turn civilised overnight. They began, in actual fact, undergoing a gradual, prolonged, and continuous process of transformation from a hundred per cent barbarian state into less barbarian and partly civilised humans, to my way of thinking. Thus, humans in the Middle Ages were less barbarian and more civilised than humans in ancient times but more barbarian and far less civilised than humans of modern times. Humans of the twentieth century were more civilised than humans of the nineteenth century, weren't they ? The key factor that matters in this matter is the level of your enlightenment, as I see it. I define enlightenment as the knowledge and wisdom that enlightens you. There exists a certain level of enlightenment you must attain in order to be able to know the right from the wrong clearly when you'd appreciate the principle of healthy and meaningful living and the fact that humanity needs it in order to make its existence bothy healthy and meaningful. It's only after you've attained this level of enlightenment, made the PHML your life principle, and changed your practices and mode of living accordingly that you'd deserve to be reckoned civilised truly and wholly, the way I view it. Thus, viewed from my viewpoint, the PHML is meant to make humanity turn civilised through and through.


Further, I believe humanity, if it wants to secure its survival against its own power, has got no other option than to recognise and respect the PHML. The truth is all-mighty. The discovery of the truth behind the solar power, namely E= mc2 , the mass-energy equivalence equation, led to the invention of fission and fusion bombs in the 20th century, with which humanity acquired tremendous power. Power you need to destroy. You also need power to create and to save. One proof of the destructiveness of power is Hiroshima and Nagasaki, two populous cities of Japan, which were razed to the ground by two fission bombs, which fact brought the World War II to an end.


I do not know what led Einstein to, nor do I subscribe to, the Einsteinian thesis that ' science without religion is lame ' ( SCIENCE AND RELIGION II in ideas and opinions ; p 46 ). I can see science is standing on its own legs which are strong enough to make science stand erect all by itself on firm ground. I can also see science in itself is not destructive. You're at liberty to use your scientific knowledge equally for the purpose of both creation and destruction. Not only has the discovery of E= mc2 led to the invention of fission and fusion bombs, it has also made possible the production of nuclear power and thus rid humanity of its dependence on fossil fuel to meet the requirement of energy. A glaring instance of how dreadful a human with knowledge not-combined with the PHML can become is the terrorists that spray acid onto girls' faces and riddle girls with bullets to punish them as they want to read and write or the terrorists that, notwithstanding they're humans, have no love nor any respect for humanity or human life and do not hesitate to kill themselves in order to kill innocent humans. Therefore, as I see it, in order to make sure of its own survival, the humanity must combine the knowledge of the truth with something like the PHML.


Man is a social being, and it's the social environment you were born and bred in that matters most in the matter of what sort of a man you are in essence. The social environment even in the most advanced civilisation of the world leaves a lot to be desired, to my way of thinking. No society makes an effort to enlighten its members about the silliness of wasting their life pursuing money and power. The silly do not know that money is not everything, and that they run the risk of giving in to the allure of easy money through illicit means and practices and being found out someday to land up in prison. They do not know either that power corrupts, and that the powerful are prone to abuse power and thus risk themselves being brought to justice and punished as well. There's no telling whether you yourself or the beloved of yours won't fail to resist the irresistible beckoning of money and power, be brought to book, and thus receive your or their just deserts. Therefore, in order to safeguard yourself as well as your beloved ones against the lure of the filthy lucre and power that corrupts, the PHML happens to be, from my perspective, the only choice you're left with. Nevertheless, of course living a life as the penniless and the powerless do doesn't fit in with the PHML. Then, why and how should the PHML deserve to be reckoned a sensible idea and an answer to our problem ? It's a just question, and no sensible human can help wracking their brain in order to work it out. The most important point no sensible humans ought to miss in this regard is leading an unhealthy and meaningless existence as the silly, the benighted, the crooked, the greedy, the hypocrite, and the antisocial do can't be acceptable to and becoming for a civilised human. Changing the social environment to make it harmonise with the PHML and thus making the planet earth a far better place for the good ( we cannot make it equally good or better for both the good and the bad ) happens to be, in my view, the only solution to the problem at issue. There will be none more powerful nor anyone less powerful as well as none richer nor anyone poorer than you in the new world of my vision. Obviously, the new world of my vision has got no room for classes— rulers, the ruled, exploiters, the exploited, the rich, the poor, the super-rich, the down and out, the privileged, the underprivileged, et cetera, et cetera, and so it happens to be identical with the classless communistic world. But the transition to communism is a great big mission that calls for the united effort by a great big number of people who must be motivated and inspired by the PHML.


Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Prakash RnP profile image
      Author

      Prakash Ranjan Paul 8 months ago from INDIA

      I'm so glad to see this hub featured. I'd like the editors and the moderators of HubPages to accept my cordial thanks for this. I think I've done humanity a great service by presenting it with this humble piece of writing by myself. I wish humanity would reciprocate it too.

    • Prakash RnP profile image
      Author

      Prakash Ranjan Paul 2 months ago from INDIA

      So far NOT a single person has shown they've got the backbone they need be possessed of in order to stand for The PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING . This is NOT a fact, I'm afraid to say, which does credit to humanity. This fact only strengthens my view that humanity still, in the space age, happens to be way too uncivilised. And my American friends, humans of the most advanced civilisation, and humans belonging to the only SUPER POWER of the world, canNOT claim to be exceptions, to my way of thinking. How do you view it ?

    Click to Rate This Article