Which is Easier: Straightening a Dog's Tail or Making Election Clean?

Politics has become a dirty game. It has now come to a situation where people say unless you are a crook, you cannot make a career in politics. But if politics has become a den of thieves and robbers, we cannot expect them to legislate rules that would govern our collective life towards a more progressive society; to enhance our well-being. How can we expect thieves and robbers to lead the way in striving for common good? Good people must enter the political arena if we have to have a decent society. 

So this campaign -- Clean Election -- by certain groups is a brave and a desirable move. And to make Clean Election more effective in the future, this is what I have to say. It is not sufficient to say that candidates should not distribute money or that people should not take money from the candidates. I call telling the candidates not to try to lure people with money or telling people not to take money as the first line of Strategy for Clean Election campaign. I think we need a second line as well to make it more effective. And this is the second line of strategy: Even if you have taken money, you need not vote for the person from whom you have taken money. Don't let your conscience prick you into voting for the candidate from whom you have taken money! 

Now let me provide a theological justification for the second line. Over the years if all the candidates realise that giving money does not really gather votes, they will stop using money to purchase votes. If money does not gather votes, real issues that affect the lives of the people will have to be the subject of electioneering. And this is what Clean Election campaign wants to obtain.

Human being is intrinsically good. I am a Christian and I believe that when God made us, he declares his creation good. But there is also something that has gone wrong. So there is also this part of fallenness in all of us. So trying to get a perfect world through democracy or theocracy or monarchy or whatever is going to be like trying to straighten a dog's tail. However, we can make the world less unjust or a little better place to live. This is possible!

Buddhism is Not an Atheistic Religion

Gotama, as it is spelled in Digha Nikaya, was concerned with ending suffering. His teaching has no room for the gods to help a person is realising nibbaba ('nirvana' in Sanskrit). The existence of heaven and hell are not his concern. All of this does not mean that Gotama denies the existence of gods, heaven and hell. If atheism means denial of the existence of gods, then Gotama was not an atheist; and Buddhism not an atheistic religion. 

In the 16th Sutta of the Digha Nikaya, called Mahaparinibbana Sutta: The Great Passing (The Buddha's Last Days), an account relating to the gods takes place. Gotama was almost at the end of his life. Just then when Upavana was standing near to him, fanning the dying Gotama, Gotama asked him to move aside. Ananda, Gotama's close disciple, asked the Lord why this was done. Gotama said, Ananda, the devas from ten world-spheres have gathered to see the Tathagata... attain final Nibbana" Gotama continued saying that the devas (gods) are complaining that their vision is being blocked by the monk standing in front of the Lord. Upon inquiring what kind of gods have come, Gotama said that sky-devas,  earth-devas and devas who are free from craving are there. 

Traditional Buddhism also believes that a person can be reborn in Hell or in the world of hungry ghost or the asuras (demons) or peerless devas etc. Considering this sort of beliefs, it is not correct to label Buddhism as an atheistic religion.

Quoting Wikipedia as a Source: Yes or No?

So many people have written on this, nevertheless, I thought it's important to repeat here specially for those who may read only my blog. Is it alright to quote Wikipedia material as a source when one is writing a book or an article for a journal? No. And these are the reasons: 

1. One never knows who all have written the materials of Wikipedia. It could have been written by a Ph.D scholar or  by someone with a strong prejudice about the subject matter. Since one does not have sufficient idea whether the material has been written by a person with sufficient expertise or not, it is not trustworthy. Along with this take the fact that the materials can be edited by anyone. 

2. When online materials are quoted, it is important to give the date of accessing the materials. With Wikipedia the materials can change many a time in a day itself since it follows a system where anyone can do editing. This is just too unstable and thus leaves no chance to be vetted by scholars.

NB: To get the broad overview of the subject, Wikipedia provides a good platform. But to be quoted as an authoritative source for a book/journal, Wikipedia is not an appropriate source, at least for now.