Happy For You

 The phrase "I am happy for you". It is so easy to say and presumably leaves an impression on the listener. May be that is why it is said. But is it really that easy and natural to be happy for others. I think it depends on the type of person that you are and one that you want to become. But when we just acquire the habit of saying it at the drop of a hat, it is more of how we want to be seen. It becomes an exercise at honing our PR skills. It is public posturing at the expense of a sweet concept. It is just a PR exercise where we are unconsciously trying to improve the perception the other person has of us all the time.

Though one may not like to agree with above, but mostly it has been seen that we humans derive pleasure when others are in pain and vice versa. We get a little depressed if others forge ahead of us in the race of life and get elated when the mirror of life returns our image for winners. To some extent, I will call it as "survival instinct" reigning over the Samaritan in us and to some extent you can say-Every one of us has a sadistic shade to his personality. I will say both are true. A little bit of this may be healthy and required for your survival but then the danger is that if you continue being happy with others' miseries, it soon will develop into a habit making you a negative person not capable of seeing the beauties of life and missing the opportunities for his own self improvement. So I will say let al of us be a little bit selfish and think of improving our lot before becoming too obsessed with finding fault with others lest that take away your valuable time and energy.

Father of the Nation

Someone who builds a nation, brings together hitherto disparate tribes or principalities can be accorded the title "Father of the Nation" where the concept of nation did not exist before you. There certainly have been historical figures who were responsible for bringing together hitherto disparate people and make them appreciate the synergy arising out of  their coming together. And this synergy has lead to creation of some great countries in the world, the country of U.S.A being a beacon under its founding father George Washington. Father of the nation is a honorific title given to a person considered to be the driving force behind the establishment of a country, state or nation. But the same logic does not hold in case of Bharat and we should not go looking for a "Father of the Nation" because none exists. Even the Brahmrishis who have given us the Upanishadic or otherwise vision were never approached as "Father of Bharat".

George Washington is considered to be the father of the American nation because he brought the erstwhile 13 British colonies together to fight against the repressive policies of the colonial British masters that lead to the establishment of a country that now goes by the name of U.S.A. Bismarck is best remembered for his role in German unification. Historians praise him as a visionary who was instrumental in uniting Germany. In similar vein Garibaldi and Mazzini contributed towards the unification of present day Italy.

According to Puranas, this country is known as Bharatvarsh after the King Bharat Chakravarty. This has been mentioned in Vishnu Puran (2.1.31), Vayu Puran (33,52), Linga Puran (1.47.23), Brahmand Puran (15,5,62), Agni Puran (107,11-12), Skanda Puran Khand (37,57) and Markandey Puran (50,41). Vishnu Puran (2.1.31) states-

"Uttaram Yat Samudrasya, Himadreshrev Dakhshinam, Varsha tad Bharat Naamam, Bharti Yatru Santati"                            meaning 

"The country that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bharatam, there dwell the descendants of Bharat.

At another instance one comes across:

"Ratnaakar Dhautpadaam, Himalaya Kiritineem, BrahmaRajrishi Ratnadhyaam, Bharat vande Maatram."                      meaning

"Whose feet are washed by the ocean, who is crowned by the Himalayas, who bears gems like Brahma and Rajrisihis, I bow to that Bharat who is akin to my mother."

Some research scholars also quote similar recordings from other ancient texts, which predate the Greek invasion of present Northwest Indian subcontinent:

"Himalayam Samaramya Yaavat Indusarovaram, Tam Devnirmit Desham Hindusthanam Prachakshet."                meaning

"The country that was raised by the Gods commenced from the Himalayas and extended up to the Indian ocean is known as Hindusthanam".

The boundaries of the ancient Bharat as a nation, as different from the later day nation-state concept, extended way westward from Sind river to the present day Kandahar province of Afghanistan and river Kabul.

Thus we se that the country of Bharat has existed since times immemorial and it should serve as an educating tool to some who think that the concept of India did not exist before and only now the country has come into existence. Some would even stretch their imagination and thank Britishers for uniting us into one country. In fact, I find it quite a disturbing thought to think that someone was responsible for bringing to fruition this wonderful country of Bharat because that robs it of its sense of history. If at all some-one has to be accorded the title of the Architect of modern India, some-one who bore the burden of coalescing different princely states under the auspices of the Indian union after 1947, it has to be that Himalayan personality Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. Why are we misappropriating a title?

In this case, rather than unification, by dint of your lack of vision, Bharat had already been balkanized with the creation of Pakistan , what with Jinnah not having to do anything with Gandhi's fasts-the only tool he had in his arsenal. Rather Gandhi, I think would have presided over further balkanization of Bharatvarsh with the creation of another Pakistan i.e. Nizam's Hyderabad in Southern India. I wonder then, using what logic can we accord him the title "Father of the Nation". If not presided, he would definitely have blessed it.

The concept "Father of the Nation" becomes completely redundant if the Nation has pre-dated you-the father. Yes, you can be called  "A son of the soil". I am reminded of Vajpayee ji's highly relevant lines here-"Partiyaan aayengi jaayengi, yeh desh rehna chahiye"(meaning -political parties will come and go, what should stay permanent is the essence of the country). 

It does not rile you as much that a foreign concept seems to have been borrowed because of mental bankruptcy but what riles you more is that a historical wrong is perpetrated on masses arising out of sycophancy. Yes, you can accord honorifics to a person arising out of your respect for him. Please do it but you have to be very responsible if it has the potential to assume historical significance and pervert the message which generations down the road will come to accept as gospel truth. If we let personal emotions get in the way of rationale behind something that has national ramifications, that is the point when we should step back. It took Bharat almost three-quarters of a century to assert itself on the global level and grow out of its "Turn the other cheek in" mentality. Fathers don't teach their children to give in to bullies. Rather they coach them to withstand bullying as that is the only way bullies will cower down.

One should feel honored to be accepted as one of the sons of the land and never aspire to be the "Father of the Nation" especially in the Indian context where Bharat-the country is venerated as Bharat Mata. That, I would say is tantamount to treading upon dangerous territory. Those that bestowed the title on Gandhi did a grave injustice to his legacy.

Gandhi's own disciple and India's 1st PM Jawahar Lal Nehru traces the ancient roots of this wonderland in his  book "The Discovery of India" drawing from his knowledge of Vedas and Upanishads. Is he refuting Gandhi to be the "Father of the Nation?" Something that children all across present day India are taught in History text books since childhood. Seems it is time India needs to revert back to its roots of Bharat.

                                                           "Hey Bharat Vande Maatram"

Freedom Narrative

 Everything emanates from the mind only eventually to find its flowering in the form of physical symptoms. Throwing off a foreign yoke similarly will take sometime to vanish from the mind. Which means the reverse is true in this case. If the physical, brute force of the intruder is gone, the slavish mentality still persists in the mind. The mental corruption and the sense of shame that they thrust on us still persists in the Indian psyche to some extent. So prophetic was Winston Macaulay when he advised the British parliament in 1835 that India is a very proud nation rich in its culture and the only way to conquer it will be to make them feel ashamed of their nationality and feel as if everything/every thought is imported from the west. They do merit a congratulatory note as they have been very successful in that endeavor.

 It is high time that misplaced notions , misappropriated titles, out of proportion egos be settled most humbly to where they belong and rightful heirs be accorded their due place.

I don't think there is any need to repeat history; definitely not in the way Indian NCERT text-books were drafted to tell us. As I feel any reporting of facts can't be neutral and will always be biased towards the narrator's creed of thinking. Let every serious student do his own bit and complete his assignment without an attempt to justify any gargantuan blunder or foresight that might advertently or inadvertently made during the way.

Remember, the aggressor will always like to negotiate with the person/parties who are very amenable to his views and where he can get away with most of the concessions. It is neither natural nor practical for him to indulge in negotiating with hardcores who will exact the last pound of flesh and make you leave that on the table.

Enough of this -"De dee tune Azadi bina khadag bina daal......BS". Not that I am trying to discredit someone's contribution towards India's(Bharat's) freedom struggle. No, I acknowledge them with all humility at my command. But it is only human that if you are aggrandizing someone so much so beyond his human capabilities and that too at the expense of others' hard work, it won't be fair to the other person's legacy which you are contesting or straightaway maligning. Thanks to this back search algorithm called Google developed by some smart minds, you can illumine yourself with some clicks and not wait endlessly for a truth to emerge unlike earlier.

I understand it is highly difficult for all of us to get rid of the cloak of conditioning that we have been raised with, made to read as to who the heroes of Indian freedom struggle where and who the villains' were. And we just accepted it at the face value and involuntarily became a part of the damage wreaking machinery when we narrated that half baked story to an innocent neighbor or acquaintance or corrupted the next generation. Please don't do that.

It is only natural if you have been told "so and so" was a villain and by political machinations is made to dock behind a kathgara in a court of law, you will try to disassociate with all his philosophy lest it land you in trouble.

The disassociation which has been stoked out of a fear psychoses' can prove to be quite detrimental to the evolution of a nation or at least slow down the progress as people will hesitate to come forth and lend their hand to nation building process.

Even at the international scene, in the highest echelons of power, you will see that this hyperbole has ben inflated to such an extent that immediately deflating it is going to lead to an implosion which you definitely don't want. It may be prudent here to let time; with the advent of spring; defog the mirror of any dust for images to appear more crisp.

You can let an ordinary person bask in the glory of his ordinariness. In fact, that is the luxury or the privilege of belonging to the ordinary class. No one judges you. As your decisions, be they good or bad, will affect you and you only-your health, your life, your budget but it will be limited to you only. Or if stretched, it may end up having an impact on your close family. But if a person is exposed to social life and exalted to the podium of "Mahatma" then he better come up to the mark. Yes, he will have a lot of detractors, a lot of people baying for his blood, a lot of people hell bent to prove each of his action and utterance biased in one direction and wrong. But once that dust settles down in due course of time, history will reign supreme at the altar of judgment because it won't have a motive to paint anyone black. It will just narrate the events as they occurred and let the seeker absorb the message as per his/her intellect.  

I understand that how a society treats its minorities is  testament to its evolution as a civilized society. In this context I am proud that Zoroastrians; who were driven out of their native Persia by Islamic zealots and they sought refuge in Bharat; were absorbed without any compunctions and they too did their part in assimilating in the ethos of the new home. A real "sah naa vavtu" has happened here. 

In this context, I will say that one doesn't follow appeasement of one particular minority group at the cost of the majority feelings. You don't sing verses rom Quran in a Hindu temple even in the face of stiff opposition from Hindu devotes there. That way you are trampling upon their feelings in a very despotic manner and such thing will have their repercussions. You don't approach a murderer by the honorific of Bhai Abdul Rasheed and then pervert the exalted teachings of Gita to somehow justify your actions. I thought our father of the nation was smarter than that. You are being an emotional despot as if the world (or Indians at large) do not sing your tune, you would go on a hunger strike. If you can convince, convince with the logic of your argument, not with the threat of harming your body. Anyway, as Shri Krishna says in Gita-"This human life us very precious, but is nashvar-subject to destruction."

This is not secularism. This is favoritism being pushed under the garb of secularism. Please don't play with words. Such an attitude on your part towards one particular community is going to sow the seeds of dissention between them and the majority and set the ground for a narrative of discord and distrust which we find in 21st century Bharat.

My Kanyon

 It was a day in May 2019 when my daughter Ishna came to me and said-dad I want to get him home, he is so cute. Not that, that excited me. I had been mowing the lawn and tiringly wanted to get by it without paying any distraction a lot of attention. Anyway we had already put down the deposit on a pet and would get it before winter.

Ishna has always been fond of dogs. She would recognize a dog's breed just by looking at it/it's picture and rattle off it's traits, health concerns, whether it would make for a good pet or not .etc. She had been insisting on a pet dog since she was six years old and now she was twelve. It was getting harder by the day to contain her. I was about to gibe in and yield to het. Glad for my life that I did.

I, coming from a house-hold where cleanliness nd order stood above everything else and never having had a pet in my house earlier, was quite reluctant at the prospect of sharing space with a dog. It is just that there were so many unknowns which I did not know how to handle. What about the fur that would be everywhere? How would I protect my nicely polished wood floor, what about the furniture, the couches and the lamps? Al types of people who has never owned a dog would offer their unsolicited advice. They would say-"Oh you should cover your floor with plastic, don't give it access to every room in your house(Kanyon lords over the entire house-it being his home). Even the lady at the shelter from where we ended up getting Kanyon advised me against giving hi access to all the rooms in the house.

Coming back to that fateful day (I think it was a weekend), we sought an appointment with the shelter (Lynnwood Paws to be exact) to see this beauty. I have to confess-I fell immediately in love with him. And as did my wife Pooja who had previously seen him. And how could you not with his drooling gaze following you everywhere imploring you to take him home. After cuddling and playing with him, we were doing the paperwork to take him home. On way back home, I brought his food, feeding bowls and crate for him to sleep in. Little did I realize that that would be the only night he would sleep in the crate as soon the whole house was his for taking. Soon the crate was up for resale on Craigslist and it was gone. 

Rest as they say is history and I am sure the words are not going to do any justice to the emotion, the bond, the pace he has in our lives. Very soon we would find him becoming an integral part of our lives. When we would go camping, he would sleep on top of me or my wife's bed, keen to squeeze in the tiny 4 person tent.

Soon I would be seeing him following me everywhere in the house or if I would stop out to work in the yard, he would start weeping at the prospect of being left alone and I would have to invite him to sit with me on the porch. He is my companion on my hikes and loves to hike all the way to those beautiful alpine lakes that this state is blessed with. One beauty meeting other beauty. 

He can not bear the prospect of having to share me with anyone. He would wait for Pooja to feed him any snacks before coming up to retire in the bed with me. His favorite spot being the one between my wife and me. If I attempt to hug Ishna sometimes, he would come up o his hind legs, give a lowly growl as if saying that he too wants a hug. I can bore you with stories of my son. Such is my son, Kanyon. 

3 Wise Monkeys

 I am sure the title itself gave up the intent of the essay, I am not good at keeping surprises. In a way that is good as it saves me from having to give a lengthy introduction to something that has attained a folk-lore stardom in India (err Bharat)-"Gandhi ji key teen Bandar."

The 3 monkeys where one is holding his hands to his eyes. the other to his ears and the 3rd to his mouth translate into "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil." The statue of 3 monkeys made of China clay was gifted to Gandhi by a Japanese monk named Nishidatsu Fuji and are famous in Japan as Mizaru, covering his eyes, who sees no evil; Kikazaru, covering his ears, who hears no evil ; and Iwazaru, covering his mouth, who speaks no evil. Gandhi names these 3 monkeys as Bapu, Ketan and Bandar and this statue is prominently displayed at the Sabarmati Ashram in Ahmedabad, Gujarat.

This concept has been attributed to be developed by Confucius and then adopted by the Japanese. They were the first to use monkeys to explain this philosophy. But then the question that begs to be answered is -Why monkeys???

In Chinese (or Mandarin to be precise), two similar phrases exist; one in the Analects of Confucius (4th-2nd century B.C.) that reads "Look not at what is contrary to propriety; listen not to what is contrary to propriety; speak not what is contrary to propriety; make no movement which is contrary to propriety. The other is in the book Xunzi (3rd century B.C.)  which reads "The gentleman makes his eyes not want to see what is not right, makes his ears not want to hear what is not right, makes his mouth not want to speak what is not right, and makes his heart not want to deliberate over what is not right."

Again we will come back to the question of why monkeys??? and explore if we find anything resembling this thought emerging from these lands, from the laboratories of Brahmrishis and Rajrishis or does it qualify as imported wisdom as we are taught.

In the Upanishads, the mind is compared to an inebriated monkey that has drunk wine, then bitten by a scorpion and has been assaulted by a hive of bees. And so the famous connotation-Monkey Mind. So it is only natural to use the analogy of a monkey to tame some of the basal animal instincts. 

May I refer to the Shanti Mantra found in many Upanishads-Maandukya Upanishad, Prashna Upanishad, & Kaivalya Upanishad and so on. The first part of the Shanti Mantra which is relevant here goes as -

"Om Bhadram Karnebhih Shrnnuyaama Devaah, Bhadram Pashyema-Akssabhir-Yajatraah,

 Sthirair-Anggais-Tussttuvaamsas-Tanuubhih, Vyashema Deva-Hitam Yad-Aayuh"

 meaning "O Devas-May we hear with our ears what is auspicious, O Devas(who are worthy of worship), may we see with our eyes what is auspicious, with sense organs steady and body praying (due to hearing and seeing the auspicious), may we attain the lifespan allotted by the devas(thus finding fulfillment in our lives).

Thus we see a difference in this shanti mantra at not stopping at some body actions only but also answering the causal action as to what will result from that which the 3 monkeys never told us. We see how how our bodies and sense organs will be stable due to seeing and hearing the auspicious (that is why great stress is placed on participating and hearing the good word in Satsang and kirtan in Sanatan). And we also see how that is invoked to finding the fulfillment in our lives. 

It is hard to resist one more difference where the Shanti Mantra trumps over the 3 monkeys. Did you see a negative word like "NO" or "EVIL" in the Santi Mantra? Ask yourself-does the mere mention of a negative word not conjure up negative emotions, feelings in you. I will leave the answer with you.

Not that I am trying to take the credit away from Japanese or Confucius or Shintoism. etc. No, that would be very childish. Yes different people can reach the same conclusion following paths independent of each other. As the famous Rig Vedic phrase goes "Ekam Sat Vipra Bahudha Vaddanti" (lest it also be hijacked by a pseudo liberal foreign impostor, but that is for another day).

Then why do I make you read all this. I will still have to yield to the person who conquered the summit first, listen to his anecdotes, pay heed to which path he wants me to take and which to avoid so that there are no potholes in it and I may reach my destination safely.

And then there is also a stage in your evolution when you can claim-"I don't care where the news came from as long as it added value to my life." For a realized being, it really won't matter. But for all us ordinary souls, let us not try to feign realization without having arrived and let us bask in the glory of ordinariness.

And (they tell me not to start a sentence with an "and" and when did I oblige) also it is highly improbable that a person of the caliber of Gandhi; like him or not; with a seemingly good knowledge of Sanatani precepts (it is another topic that he tweaked much of it to further his political ambitions in a bid to become the Mahatma) did not know that the same philosophy is embedded in a Shanti Mantra. He could have and should have given it its due credit lest he be accused of plagiarism. 

Clearing the smokescreen makes more sense in view of the constructs, narratives that are out there blurring the real picture.

Swastik and Hakenkreuz

 Sanatani swastik has become a very efficient hate symbol exercised by the vested powers/illiterate hoodlums in west to raise a frenzy against the Hindus, a source of perpetual harassment and embarrassment to the Hindus-as we Sanatanis are rereferred to thanks to the Greek and Persian lisp of tongue.

Let us get down to the basics a bit. Not that I want to get pedantic about what swastik stands for. All of the Sanatani readers know that. But I owe it to the western reader before he jumps to a conclusion with unfortunate results.

It is an ancient symbol used in Hindu culture signifying well-being. Just the meaning of the Samskrit word "swastik" means "conducive to well-being". Then how come such a positive symbol of love came to represent hate or at least that is what is being tried to be shovelled down our throat.

We have allowed the word to be hijacked and incorporating mischievously into Hitler's autobiography-"Mein Kampf". Hitler being raised in an orthodox Christian atmosphere was deeply impressed by the hooked cross which he would see during growing up at several places including the Abbot's statue's coat of arms in Benedictine monastery in Lambach Austria. He details this thought process as to how he implemented it while designing the Nazi flag, Nazi arm-bands (you will ubiquitously see it on those) and all other paraphernalia. He was looking for a symbol that would invoke a hyper German pride among Germans. And what better symbol to use than something that has  a deep religious/Christian connotation. For a devoutly Christian country such as Germany, nothing would resonate more than a symbol connected to their roots and religious beliefs. Someone explain to me why he would use a "Hindu" symbol? What good would it get him?

Hitler has used the word "Hakenkreuz" extensively in his autobiography. It was only an Irish Catholic priest and journalist by the name of James Vincent Murphy (who published the first complete translation of Mein Kampf in 1939) who advertently did all the mischief while translating the word Hakenkreuz. This mischief would come to have very adverse repercussions on present day Hindu population and that too those living in the Western hemisphere where exposure to Vedic scriptures, philosophy, symbols etc is very limited. Murphy deliberately mistranslated Hakenkreuz into Swastika while leaving all other German words in original form or translating them properly in English.

It is evident that Murphy was familiar with native German words that didn't really have English equivalents. Furthermore if there were no English equivalents to these words, I can never for the life of me understand how come "Swastika" became the English translation to "Hakenkreuz". 

Our dear google also got it wrong. If you use google German to English translator and you enter Haken in, it rightly gives you the English translation as Hook. Enter "Kreuz" and you get Cross. Now enter the combined word "Hakenkreuz" and see magic happen. Instead of returning the combined English word HookedCross, which you would have been expecting  it returns Swastika or Nazi swastika.I keep on wondering how Hakenkreuz became Swastika. Even the back page search engine has been corrupted with the virus of political correctness.

I can see some of my politically correct friends smirking in their couches by now and frowning-but it is only a name? Why make such a big fuss about it. Let it go. It may suffice here to say that a lot of hate crime is targeted in this country (U.S.A) on Hindus because of this one mischief in translation done by one Mr. Murphy. 

Here we see a particular Home Owner's Association advising an apartment resident in Boston not to display swastika outside his door and to take it down immediately or otherwise vacate the premises, we see a new car being vandalized because it had been worshipped at the local temple and had "swastik" emblazoned on it. We see "Office for the prevention of hate crime in NY" list swastika as a hate symbol. What a travesty of justice! Shame on them for not having done their home work properly and then not having the guts to call it by its real name-Hakenkreuz or in plain English (if the German word comes cross as a tongue twister)-Hooked Cross. Education and awareness on many fronts is the need of the hour. 

Hitler did misappropriate a religious symbol to further his political career. But that religious symbol was the Christian hooked cross and not the Sanatani swastika.

Selfishness

 Selfishness, though a word with negative connotations can easily be ascribed as the motive behind all human endeavor. Before moving ahead, lest I be accused of spreading perversion and expose myself to misinterpretation, it is very important to explain what I mean by selfishness here, not to give a holistic definition of the term. If one googles "selfishness" for a quick definition, the following come up:

-concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself; seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure or well being, without regard for others.

Now, this is definitely bad. We, as social animals have to have a regard for others. Altruism or selflessness on the other hand is the principle and practice of concern for the well-being of other humans or animals. It may even border on extreme by abnegating self but won't that tantamount to insulting the best creation of God i.e. human himself.  

The core of the word here is "self" occurring in both Self-ish and Self-less. Humans have been trained since times immemorial (the western education particularly lays emphasis on it when it comes to preaching about morals) to see things from a binary lens-only good or bad, white or black, in or out etc. It seems as if the world is a binary switch waiting to be flipped. In practice, you see degrees to which a person may be evolved and may be sensitive to, in different domains of human endeavor. I may be more sensitive towards some particular pursuit of life than my neighbor, but that does not grant me the privilege of judging him/her. That borders on radicalism. At the same time though, letting everything pass under the garb of liberalism and all that also is not the wont of the gentleman. Life remains beautiful and worthy of living only if it is lived within certain norms. 

Back to the point of selfishness-

If I identify this self as only my body with complete disregard to how my decisions regarding furtherance of its appearance or my indulgence in carnal pleasures does to those around me, then I stand trial at the altar for being selfish.

Now if I increase the scope of my self to include my wife I become a good husband or include my family, keep their well-being close to my heart, put food on the table (may be because it is cheaper than eating out in a restaurant) and pay my bills, I suddenly transform into a family man and may not be so deplorable in the eyes of the law. Remember I am doing all this from a self ish perspective.

- If I don't care for my wife, she will walk away and I will be miserable

- If I don't care for my family, I will have raised brutes and not civil/thinking human beings that will only come to bite me in future.

- If I don't pay my bills/taxes in time, I will be forced not only to pay huge fines (which no-body in the first place wants to pay) but forgo many of my liberties which hitherto I enjoyed without any restriction. Hence the quality of my life will take a hit.

-Again if I am being good to my neighbor, it may not flow from the goodness of my heart but the self ishness of the gesture being reciprocated. 

Now if you align you interests with the greater good of the people of your country, suddenly flowery words like "patriot" make your way whereas it may just be stemming from a self preservation motive of you having to spend less energy if you are flowing with the current rather than against it. Or your chances of success are magnified manifold if one is surrounded by people who understand where you come from rather than by an alien people.

We don't do anything just for its sake. Every action that we do has to have something in it for me in return. We don't water the thorny weeds for the life in them when we are watering the flower or fruit trees. Instead we weed them out because that is beneficial to us.

We like trees not because they are majestic or create a beautiful scenery or this and that. While that also is true, the ultimate thing is that they take in something that we exhale (CO2) and in return give us something that everybody on this planet (unless you are an extra-terrestrial) needs i.e. O2. There can't be a better deal than that.

Now someone may argue that what I am propounding is a utilitarian point of view and not everything in this world is garnered for its utility. And I whole heartedly agree with that. Utility is a basic human instinct and should be catered for first, but after the material utility is taken care of, other forms of utility-may be more abstract, somewhat philosophical will have to be satiated.