Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Corruption, RTI, and karma?

There is general indication that if people see the karmic implications, they will stop being corrupt. I would surely not agree with that. Today there are plenty of people who do understand, know the karmic side but they STILL actively pursue corrupt lifestyle.

Simply too much greed ! Easy money, lavish life style, power etc. are not so easy to say NO to. This is the reason why "good" needs more strength. Also, the ineffectiveness of system in terms of punishing the culprit has taken away any fear to be greedy.

BUT MORE THAN ANYTHING, the general acceptance of corruption as part of life has led to the current situation. You cannot expect to shame people (bureaucrats) into giving away corruption. The average public also does not seem to be ashamed of telling that they paid some money to get things done. This thought process which has led to believe people that corruption is as much part of our life as rain or sunshine is the hardest barrier in the fight against corruption.

The corrupt bureaucrats or private industry people also have been able to use this or other excuses to manipulate their conscience to accept or give bribes. Same applies to most of average people. Excuses like 'if I do not give bribe, I will not get it even after I die', ' I am giving it to get this good work done quickly', 'that is the only way it works in govt. offices', 'if I do not give, somebody else will and get it done; it is not going to stop the govt. official' and many more are the conscious-clearing reasons used by anybody and everybody to be corrupt. That mind within each of us which has become corrupt over the generations needs to be encountered in any way. If karmic, spiritual ways can stop you from bribing or accepting bribe so be it. If it is not spiritual but simply sensible, moral reason so be it. What if one is neither spiritually, morally nor ethically conscience? Do all (corrupt) govt. officials and politicians fall into this category of soul-less greedy and inconsiderate beings ? What about those who give bribes?

While RTI (Right To Information) is a weapon to bring the change in bureaucrats and shame them into doing their job as they are supposed to, what would be your weapon to fight against the corrupt mind you carry within you and that hand/leg which accelerates the vehicle at the sight of yellow light?


Monday, October 16, 2006

Evolution of religions.. the reason why we need to be more tolerant .

My theory is, all religions are like bunch of siblings. In general, the eldest one is more understanding and more matured. The younger ones, since there are already existing competitors tend to be more aggressive nature.

Similarly for religions, Hinduism did not have to fight for existence or for acceptance. We evolved, matured, struggled, learnt from our mistakes; but we had all the time to play with the toys (philosophically). If you observe, the religions which were ‘born’ later, had to fight against already existing philosophies for reasons which made sense to their originator. This also can be portrayed clearly in the idea of conversion. Hinduism did not have conversion as part of the religion. (The 1st noted case was sometime in later 1600, that of Netaji Palkar.). The way of conversion is very good example of increasing aggressiveness in younger, immature religions. If somebody does not know what is 2+2 it is easy to tell him that it is 3 or 4. But if somebody knows or believes that 2+2 is 4(3) and you want to convince them that it is 3 (4), then it is hard and naturally one would end up being aggressive about it. Thus aggressiveness if virtue of age of religion and my theory is as one ages, it tends to become more tolerant.

If anybody would argue about Buddish, Jainism, Sikhism, please.. I consider them as factions of Hinduism. If nothing else, they shared the evolutionary development with Hinduism and hence are less aggressive.

Also, if one tries to suppress or oppress youth, they rebel and become more aggressive. The clash between Christianity and Islamism has led to Islamism being more aggressive as well. The Muslims in countries where external interference is more are seen to be more extremist.

Hinduism existed as a tolerant culture and recently is gaining aggressiveness (this is no justification of violence but I think I am stating it merely as a factual argument) as a reaction to biased and oppressive political scenario in India. It is for the health and peace of everybody that politicians should try to understand this dynamics of evolution of religious mindsets and stop making use of religion for selfish reasons. I believe that would help all the religions to take their own course for evolution and development for the good of all humanity.

The argument mostly I hear against this theory of mine is, the basic philosophies of the new born religions itself are so violent (for whatever reason.. I believe for the reasons I have given above) that no matter what they are not going to be tolerant. I always refute sighting examples of changing of systems like crusades, burkha, and we eradicating system of Sati etc.. But that discussion itself would be a different topic.

In short, I would say that we need to exercise tolerance, provide guidance and give some breathing space to the younger religions to evolve, mature, and become tolerant like us.


Sunday, August 13, 2006


काल dry-cleaning चे कपडे आणायला गेलो होतो. दुकानदार भारतीयच वाटत होता. त्याने TV कडे बघत (Israel-Lebanon news) म्हणले
"३रे महायुद्ध होणार आता !" मी जरा शंकित नजरेने जेंव्हा त्याच्याकडे बघितले तेंव्हा म्हणाला
"भारत सुद्धा पाकिस्तान वर हल्ला करणार आहे".
मी म्हणलो: नाहि शक्य ते, आणि तसे व्हायला पण नको.
"मुंबईच्या अतिरेकी हल्ल्यात पाकिस्तान चा हात आहे.. होणारच युद्ध."
मी: त्यांनी (सरकारने) काहि ठोस पुरावे सादर केले का?....
"वादच नाहिये कि पाकिस्तान चा हात आहे म्हणून.."...
मी: मान्य आहे पण तरी युद्ध करण्याइतपत .. म्म्म्म .. माहीत नाहि...
मग मी विचारले, तुम्ही भारतीय का?..
"नाहि केनियन.. पण भारतीय वंशाचा... आणि तुम्ही पाकिस्तानी असणार.."
(हे सगळे संभाषण अर्थात इंग्लिश मधे चालू होते.)...
मी: नाहि, मी खरे तर पुण्याचा..मुंबई पासून २ तास..
माझ्या मित्राने माझ्याकडे साशंक नजरेने बघत... भारतीय आहे तर मग 'हा असा कसा?' हा विचार सुरु केला असावा..
आणि मी विचार करत बाहेर पडलो कि मी नक्कि काय म्हणालो ज्यामुळे त्याने मला पाकिस्तानी ठरविले...

खरे तर मी एका सहिष्णु आणि समंजस भारतीयासारखाच बोललो न्हवतो का? ..

पण आजची भारतीय मानसिकताच बदलत चालली असावी (ती व्यक्ती केनियन असली तरी माझ्यासाठी हा अनुभव नवीन नाहि.)... राजकीत नेत्यांनी ज्या ज्या गोष्टिंचे मतांसाठी भांडवल केले , त्या त्या सर्व गोष्टि आज अंगाशी येत आहेत आपल्या.. भाषाभेद, प्रांतभेद, जातभेद, धर्मभेद, कर्मभेद, अर्थभेद, वर्णभेद (आर्यन, द्रविडीयन)... अश्या अनेक भेदांमध्ये आज भारताची अस्मिता हरवली आहे.. स्पष्ट बोलयचे तर मला असे वाटते कि अस्मितेची व्याख्याच बदलून गेली आहे आज.. आणि हे फ़क्त भारतातच नाही तर जगभर खरे आहे.. अस्मिता, अभिमान म्हणजे दुसर्याला पाण्यात पहाणे, द्वेष करणे, आणि कमी लेखणे असा काहिसा अर्थ झाला आहे अशी खूप भीतिदायक कल्पना बर्याच वेळा मनाला दचकवून जाते... जर मी कोणाला माझ्यापेक्षा कमी नाहि लेखले तर मला 'स्वाभिमान' नाहि असे काहिसे विचीत्र गणित आजूबाजूलाहि दिसते..

अरे गुन्हेगाराला माफ़ करा असे कोण म्हणत आहे ?... पण प्रत्येक जण फ़क्त मारामारी आणि युद्धाची भाषा बोलतो.. हिंसक मानसिकता आज एक शोर्याचे प्रतिक बनली आहे... 'खरी शूरता हि सामंजस्यात आणि संयमात आहे' हि एक कवी-कल्पना नसून असे सत्य आहे ज्यापासून भित्रट माणूस दूर पळत आहे. हिंसा खरे तर भीती व दुर्बलते ला सामोरे न जाण्यासाठी चढवलेला मुखवटा आहे ह्या अर्धवटरावांनी..

Monday, July 24, 2006

What I mean when I say I am atheist ?

When I say I am an atheist belonging to a certain religion it is hard for lot of people to understand it. Thus this effort to pen my understanding of religions and associated personal view of atheism.

I want to, and I do, live my daily life with certain spirituality. This spirituality dictates philosophy of my life, or so I believe. This philosophy consists of the interaction between my actions and my thoughts. The conflicts or agreements between these, my actions and thoughts, are my ethics or my morality (I will be using these words interchangeably ). We humans, as social animals, have two kinds of moralities/ethics. One on a social level and the second on an individual level.

The social morality directs how one conducts oneself in public; a trivial example would be nudity in public. The personal ethics are quite different but equally, if not more, important for the social stability of any human society. The most primary social morals are generally defined in constitutions and implemented as laws. Then there are certain unwritten morals (which we generally call ethics or manners) which are imposed by tacit mutual and social understanding. There are policemen(cops) or group of people to monitor one’s conduct at this level. These are the things where the social accountability ends and “freedom” starts. The other important aspect of the social structure is the social responsibility which, unless otherwise forced, is blissfully ignored.

The hardest tests of morality or ethics are seen at the individual level for obvious reasons. In almost all cultures and countries, generally, the policeman (you can say, the guide, but I prefer the policeman) at this level is GOD (i.e. RELIGION as implementer). God (he/she/it.. whatever) is the beautifully crafted concept by great philosophers; some of these great humans wrote the so-called ‘holy books’ like Gita, Bible, Koran, etc.. The effect of policeman has been tried to achieve through different styles like, by appealing to the social (inclining towards peace and security) nature of humans, or by exploiting the insecurity and bribing with a false sense of assurance, or by appealing to the inherent fear of death or in some cases, fear of life after death. The concept of religion (and hence ‘god’) surely appeals me while it helps to maintain the peace and harmony.

The natural tendency of humans, viz. most are followers of a few leaders, goes hand in hand with this idea of religion/god as the cop. Religion is/was meant to manage the society. BUT the management was to be done at individual level ! The social morals and ethics were responsibility of the rulers. I have a good reason to believe that the creators of the religions or holy books understood this distinction very well. The reason for such belief is the emphasis of most of the religions for their religious leaders to practice detachment from the materialistic pleasures (not necessarily only sexual pleasures) of the world. The extent of suggestion of this alienation from materialism in a given religion, I argue, was based on the faith of the writer (god) in the followers. ALSO, the level of rigidity (or flexibility) in any religion can be thought as a function of this faith in the followers. I would go to the extent of saying that it also reflects the confidence on the writings themselves ! The implementation of this rigidity, historically and undeniably, is function of the age and maturity of a religion (I would like to say evolution but then…).

The tendency of atheism (or social humanitarianism or secularism) seems more prominent in the older cultures around the globe. I personally believe that it is a process of evolution of mind and thoughts for a society as much as for an individual. A dictionary definition of atheist is “unbeliever in God or deities’ and that of God is “supreme being” and that of god( and deity) are “supernatural being”, “figure or image”, “something that dominates”, “divine state”, and “somebody admired”.

I am an atheist who, by my definition of atheism, does NOT believe that for a human to be moral or ethical (or kind or loving or caring or trusting or having any such gentle feelings) there is ANY NEED of fear or bribe (or worry or force or insecurity or rule or such external instigated internal feelings). The accountability of a human being on an individual level can be much higher (and easily at par) than the accountability at a social level without any fear or guidance of god. The causal argument being, it is much easier for god “to forgive” one’s wrong-doing (sometimes some people call some of these wrong-doings as sins) than for oneself to deal through one’s conscience with the burden of such a wrong-doing. It is evident that lot of times god (or its representative) is used as an intermediate step for one to be able to forgive oneself for such an act.

The evolutionary stage of consciousness dictates the level of morality an atheist (or for that matter even a theist) achieves. The relative differences in the stage of conscience differentiate the atheists from one another. Lot of atheists use one or the other religion as a ladder to climb up to a level of atheism. I have seen a few who have used the ladder of religion to climb down to a different level of atheism. These are the materialistic atheists who ignore their responsibilities and sometimes even social accountability. Such beings are threat to the society. I hesitantly say that for that hostile category, even if it is fear or bribe, if it works then let it be. We, as a race, are not at a stage where we can manage completely without religion or god.
Though, currently we see that these aspects of religions have led people to be threat to each other and to themselves and eventually to human race. The love taught is through hatred for others, the security brought is through instability to others, the peace bought is through chaos to others, the respect sought is through fear to others, the belief is strengthened through mistrust in others, and the heaven is achieved through hell for others !

I am an atheist who respects those who respect others, who fears nobody and most importantly whose acts of kindness or love are not functions of any intentions of afterlife gains. I am atheist who assures to the world that he is not a threat to anybody in any way. I am an atheist who believes in everybody’s right to have their own beliefs. I am atheist who does not believe in any god but would vouch my life for the divinity in every human being. I am an atheist who does not hate anybody but only hates the thought of hatred. Finally, I am an atheist who does not worry if I am going to heaven after death but dreams of creating one here on this earth in this life of mine.

Love and peace,

Saturday, July 22, 2006

Marathi people.. same thoughts in Marathi..

माझे "Marathi people are loosing their cultural identity" ह्याबद्दलचे काहि वैयक्तिक विचार.....

मराठी माणसाची संस्कृती हि खूप गहनतेने विचार करायची गोष्ट आहे. महाराष्ट्राची भौगोलिक स्थिती आणि इतिहास नजीकच्या भूतकाळात मराठी माणसाच्या सांस्कृतिक परिवर्तनाला बहुतांशी जबाबदार आहे असे माझे मत आहे.
महाराष्ट्रीय (किंवा मराठी म्हणा) लोक हि उत्तर व दक्षिण भारतामधला दुवा आहेत. नुसता दुवा नाही तर एक सुंदर मिश्रण आहे दोहोंचे. संगीत, खाणे, आणि सर्वात महत्वाचे म्हणजे बौद्धिक क्षेत्रात हे अगदी प्रकर्षाने जाणवते. अजून एक ऊत्तम उदाहरण म्हणजे सण. त्यात दोन्हीकडच्यांशी जे नाते आहे ते नक्की अभ्यास करण्याजोगे आहे. गेले कित्येक वर्षे आपण सर्वसमावेषक आणि समजूतदार (हिंदू संस्कृती ज्यासाठी प्रसिद्ध आहे) समाज म्हणून वागत आहोत. विविधतेने रंगलेल्या भारतामध्ये आपण मराठी लोक एक सांधणारा दुवा आहोत.
मुस्लिम आक्रमणांमुळे उत्तर भारताच्या मूळ संस्कृती मध्ये नक्किच आमूलाग्र बदल झाला आहे. आणि हिंदी भाषेवरचा उर्दुचा प्रभाव कोणीच नाकारु शकणार नाही. दक्षिण भारत त्यामानाने सुरक्षित राहिला आहे आणि बर्याच प्रमाणात आपली मूळ संस्कृती जपू शकला आहे. स्वातंत्र्योत्तर काळात उत्तर भारतात हिंदीला राष्ट्रभाषेचा मान मिळाल्यामुळे (practically atleast .. ह्याची तांत्रिकता मी लवकरच पडताळून बघेन.. माझी माहिती अपुरी आहे ह्याबद्दलची) त्यांचा प्रश्ण मिटला. दक्षिण भारतात राजकीय नेत्यांनी "दक्षिणेवर होणार्या अन्यायाचे" (योग्य वा अयोग्य) भांडवल करून त्यांची भाषा (खरे तर त्यांची खुर्ची) 'जपली'.
मुंबई East India Companyची राजधानी होती आणि नंतर ती भारताची औद्योगिक व वित्तीय राजधानी झाली. त्यामुळेच तेंव्हा आणि आजहि भारतातील विविध राज्यांमधून लोक मुंबईकडे धाव घेतात. नैसर्गिकताच अशी आहे माणसाची कि परप्रांतात आले कि लोक एकत्र व एकमेकांची काळजी घेत राहतात. हे चित्र तुम्हाला US मध्ये भारतीयांच्या (व मराठी लोकांच्या सुद्धा) बाबतीत सर्व मोठ्या व छोट्या शहरांमध्ये दिसेल. आपण मराठी लोकांना मात्र परप्रांतात न जाताच घरीच (मुंबई मध्ये) सगळे मिळाले आणि म्हणूनच आपल्यामध्ये फ़क्त आपल्या लोकांनाच मदत करायची प्रवॄत्ति तयार झाली नाहि आणि आज ती तशी दिसून येत नाहि.
स्वातंत्र्यपूर्व काळात मराठी माणसाचे योगदान हे नेत्यांच्या स्वरुपाने व 'सामान्य योध्यांच्या' स्वरुपाने हि भरपूर दिसून येते. ब्रिटीशांविरुद्ध पूर्ण भारत एकत्र करण्याचे काम हे तात्या टोपेंनी केले होते. नंतर टिळक, आगरकर, सावरकर इ. अनेक मराठी स्वातंत्र्यसैनिकांनी महाराष्ट्राला स्वातंत्र्ययुद्धाचे रणांगण बनवले. भारत छोडो आंदोलनाची बीजे आणि All India Congress Committee ची ती प्रसिद्ध बैठक हि मुंबई मध्येच झाली. मुंबई ह्या राजधानी सहीत महाराष्ट्राची निर्मिती हि १९६० साली संयुक्त महाराष्ट्र चळवळी मुळे झाली. त्याच्या विजयामागे मुंबई व मराठी लोकांची एकच व अविभाज्य संस्कृती हेच होय.
भारताच इतिहास व त्यामधले मराठी लोकांचे योगदान ह्यामुळे मी मराठी आहे ह्याचा मला नक्कीच अभिमान वाटतो. आपल्यातील सर्व एकत्रितपणे राहण्याची इच्छा, सामंज्यस्याची भावना, सर्वसमावेषकता, आणि कुठलाहि गाजावाजा न करता सर्वांमध्ये मिसळून राहण्याची तयारी, हे मराठी लोकांचे रुजलेले व विकसित झालेले गुण आहेत. जर कोणी त्याला स्वतःच्या अयशस्वीते मूळे अवगुण म्हणत असेल तर मला त्यांची किव येते आणि मी अश्या विचारांशी पूर्णपणे असहमत आहे. माझ्यामते मराठी माणूस सर्व क्षेत्रांमध्ये, भारतात व जगभर, भरघोस योगदान देत आहे आणि ह्यापूर्वी सुद्धा त्याने ते दिलेले आहे.
मराठी भाषेबद्दल म्हणाल तर मला नक्किच स्थिती चिंताजनक वाटते पण आशेचे किरण पण आहेत आजूबाजूला. माझ्या आताच्या पुणे भेटित बहुतेक सार्वजनिक ठिकाणी (लक्ष्मी रोड वर सुद्धा) संभाषणाची सुरूवात हि हिंदी मध्ये होते हे बघून थोडेसे वाईट वाटले. वाटायला हवे कि नाहि, माहित नाहि. पण त्याचवेळि हिंदी चित्रपटांमधिल मराठी चे वाढलेले प्रमाण, हिट अल्बम (ऐका दाजीबा इ.),हिट कविता/गाणी (दिवस असे कि, कैफ़ियत, नामंजूर, इ.), हे सगळे उत्साहवर्धक व आशाकारक आहे.
सारांश करायचा तर माझे असे मत आहे कि मराठी लोकांनी हि जाणीव सदैव राखली पाहिजे कि आपली मराठी भाषा, लोक व संस्कृती साठी काहि जबाबदारी आहे. त्याचवेळी भारताची जगातील एक सक्षम व प्रबळ अर्थव्यवस्था बनण्याकडे चालू असलेली वाटचाल थांबवण्यासाठी परकीयांचे जे अस्थॆर्य माजवण्याचे प्रयत्न चालू आहेत त्यात आपण नक्कीच भर घालता कामा नये. दुसरे म्हणजे, आपली (मराठी) परंपरागत व विकसित झालेली जी विचारसरणी आहे त्याचा विचार करुन मगच बाकिच्या राज्यातील (काहि संकुचित मनोवृत्तिची) लोक कशी वागत आहे हे बघून स्वत:शी तूलना करावी.

Friday, July 21, 2006

Is Marathi culture getting destroyed?

“Marathi ppl are loosing their cultural identity” –

somebody made this claim....
my thoughts on the same..


मराठी माणसाची संस्क्रुती हि खूप गहनतेने विचार करायची गोष्ट आहे. महाराष्ट्राची भौगोलिक स्थिती, आणि इतिहास, नजीकच्या भूतकाळात मराठी माणसाच्या सांस्क्रुतिक परिवर्तनाला बहुतांशी जबाबदार आहे असे माझे मत आहे. (माझे मराठीचे प्रेम प्रदर्शित करुन झाल्यामुळे मी आता आपल्या सर्वांच्या स्वग्रुहीत पुर्वानुमतीने आंग्लभाषेचा वापर करुन पुढिल विचार मांडतो.)

Maharashtrians (read Marathi if you want) are the link between North and South India. It is not just the link but a beautiful mixture of North and South India. You can see that in musical cultural, food culture and most importantly the intellectual culture. The best example would be the festivals in Maharashtra and their relation to festivals in Northern and Southern parts of India. The North Indians did not worry since Hindi is our national anguage . In south, the politicians have made an issue of "injustice due to imposition of Hindi" (rightfully or wrongfully) to preserve their language (or their power).

We, Marathis, have been absorbing and accommodating (as the entire Hindu culture is known for) community for years now. In the multi-dimensionally diverse India, we, Maharashtrians, play (and played) a unifying role.

Due to Islamic invaders the North has been adulterated quite a lot from its original “culture”. You cannot deny the influence of Urdu on Hindi. South had been very well protected and hence has been able to maintain lot of its original culture.

Mumbai was capital of East India Company and turned into(still is) financial capital of India. Naturally there was (is) huge influx of people from all over India towards Mumbai. Also, considering the natural instincts, those who came as outsiders, stuck together and helped each other. (You can see Indian ghettos in all major cities {and small university towns as well}in US...its a natural instinct). Since we, as Maharashtrians, were at home, did not develop this tendency (due to lack of necessity) of helping only our kind.

During freedom struggle, “Marathi maaNus” contributed undoubtedly in huge numbers in terms of leadership as well as the fighter in the field. With the goal of unification against British, Tatya Tope gathered the whole India for a single cause. Later, Tilak, Aagarkar, Saawarkar, and numerous other Marathi freedom fighters made Maharashtra the center for freedom struggle of India. While Delhi is our Capital today, Mumbai was our real capital almost till Independence. The defining Quit India movement resolution by the All India Congress Committee was passed in its Bombay session in 1942. Maharashtra was formed with Mumbai as its capital in 1960 as a result of Samyukta Maharashtra movement. The success of it lies in the fact that the culture of Mumbai and Marathi people is inseparable.

I am a proud Marathi, especially considering the above mentioned history and contribution of Maharashtrians in the (glorious) history of India. I consider that the unifying attitude, acceptance of multi-lingual and multi-cultural communities, dissolving within diverse group without attention but with extensive contribution (can’t stop praising ‘we Marathis’ now can I? :):)) etc. are the “cultivated” and “evolved” aspects of Marathi culture. I believe (historically and even today) there were and are plenty of Marathi people with significant contribution in all aspects of life, and in India as well as all over the world.

Do I mean that there should not be any concerns about Marathi’s situation as a language in Maharashtra? Personally, I do think that there are worrisome trends but then there are some rays of hope. In my recent visit to Pune, I was surprised that almost at all public places (including Laxmi Road) default language for start of a conversation was Hindi. Not sure if it should, but it bothered me a little bit. At the same time, amount of Marathi in Bollywood movies, hit (as far as my information goes) musical albums (aika dajiba etc.), hit poems and songs (Divas Ase Ki, Naamanjoor, Kaifiyat etc.), all of these are encouraging signs for Marathi literature .

In conclusion I would say my opinion is, it is important for Marathi people to be aware of need to preserve Marathi language and culture and help each other. While doing that, first, we need NOT contribute to the mayhem India is facing during the transition to a globally powerful economy. And second, as Marathis, we should consider our (historically) evolved state of mind before judging ourselves based on how other (actually SOME narrow-minded, amongst those, if I dare to say so) communities are conducting themselves.

Thank you for reading so far (if you have really read :)),




Thursday, July 20, 2006

Richard Bach and his divorce.. my thoughts..

Lot of people were disturbed and upset due to Bach's divorce.. especially devoting themselves to his writings and thoughts in his books (in this case through the book 'Bridge Across Forever')..
my reply is/was..
I am Bachist.. but most important thing I learnt from Jonathan is one has to choose his own path.. Being dependent on Bach's life for one's idea about love is like asking somebody to teach you dreaming ! True that there is a Chiang for everybody but the message is to "stop seeing himself as trapped inside a limited body".. limited body of somebody else.

As for the relationships, soulmates and marriages.. my personal experiences and beliefs are.. the soul we have has the same quality at the root level. It is a matter of perspective to bring the best in 'anybody' to make a soulmate. To be able to do so, one should be able to convince that Jonathan who says "Home I have none. Flock I have none. I am an outcast. ... I can lift this body no higher." You have to remind him that.."One school is finished and the time has come for another to begin."..
It's just matter of saying
"I am ready".