Stir the stillness of water

Disclaimer before reading this one: This post is one-off event.It is not a funny post, it is not an enligtening post. It is justified to think that reading it will be a waste of one's time.It is not related to any other posts/person in this group directly. It is just a personal view written out elaborately as the author didnt have any other better work to do at night 2 am. Even after this post, the discussions will continue. I certainly hope that this post doesn't affect the promptness of those who post regularly in domain of discussions - 'Human beliefs'. Moreover, I am not expecting a comment over this one, saying, Karthik, thanks for your advice ;-) All these days, I was wondering, why this sudden interest, investment of time & efforts into Hypothesizing about unearthing futility,loop-holes of certain human acts, sociological conditioning and providential pre-concepts. Their gravity of arguments is not the concern of this post,but it is about my inquisitiveness about 'the' inquisitiveness basically. I realised in some time that, my premise of setting the question was wrong.There has always been this urge to question popluar myth in abundance. But now, this platform is new & appealing for instigating a fresh form of the intellectually wealthy debators over the ageless 'IS there or is there NOT' paradigm. This may be a reason why I am finding so many questions arise suddenly. The other static reason is ofcourse, my inexperience as well as adequacy in meeting a fairly varied sample of mavericks in the thinkers world. Now I feel, that there is a Socratic fervor in good amounts of this coterie. As for these discussions, heated two-sided debates & outcomes; what is happening may be right, may be wrong. The assertions are backed up with youtube videos of different contexts/people, hearing in court & writings in medieval texts. This is triggered my urge to share a few thoughts of mine. Nevermind, posting is free of cost, so here I go... I want to dote over an incident of mine a few years ago. When I was once an evangelist of my own sacred beliefs, the person with whom I had a few debates on the same topic relented furiously. He taught me a lesson which turned the card on me for life. I etched out the following points related to the sensitive human belief system in my mind: (1) People, who want to know things, from you, will come asking for it (2) If I try to radically change the way, a guy is believing/trusting/thinking & in turn living, for the last 20-30 years of his life; it is risk of actually turning him/her insane(In a way, methophorically speaking, he/she gets up the next day & doesn't know what to believe & what not to!) (3) The Hindu/sanatana system doesn't support blind belief. it neither believes in coaxing beliefs(fundamentally speaking, dont turn on me over this point telling me, that your mom/dad forced you into your current beliefs, they are not the system I am talking about precisely) (4) On the contrary to point (3), the sanatana way of life believes in Viveka - the skill of discrimination of knowledge & futility.It is mentioned in various texts to ask/learn/get enlightened & not to believe blindly. There is nothing wrong, when somebody is believing in an unknown power. It gives him/her solace, something to lean back upon, someone to go to, when there is no-one. It give the society a justification that being sane & rightful is the right thing to do through the concept of morality. In our research, when we prove, that some technique/method/tool/algorithm is not upto the mark, it is expected that we tell why are doing it & what are the alternatives.If we want to prove that some philosophy at present is lame/false, we need to paln to also fill the void thereafter. We need to re-instate another system which restores the benefits of current system of beliefs which may/may not be viewed as blind ones. Here is where the atheism philosophy fails. I feel, it may not be sustainable. Many of the greatest spiritual guys were atheists at some time. They were respected because they were inquisitive about the fundamentals, they didnt take anything kept right on the plate. But they were not too attached to their beliefs(or un-beliefs)They were learners. But they asked questions only to update their own understanding. Hence, I am not trying to turn up against atheism, but trying to support the path of reasoning & working over a direction of equilibrium. Just asserting with some red-jacketed evidences against an age old belief is not working towards the ends of finding the truth, if it is ever different. So guys, pre-supposing the research paper read approach that all of you may do when you see a single long boring essay like this, where we go through the abstract & conclusion first, I will put my assertion in the last line here in a sentence(or two) - Our belief is like underwear, it is very essential, wear it, but don't flaunt it. The sin of diverting an innocent theist into the dark/lonely world of agnostic/atheist situation is really grave. It will destroy his/her world, destroy the human existence gradually. Since, there will be nothing else to trust/live for! Question things you must, but dont keep all the doors of opinions closed. --- Dharma/truth shall prevail ---