Skip to main content

The World As It Goes!

-->
Most of us, in early youth dash towards the world with reformist zeal, suffer retaliation from the inertia & ignorance (or is that ours?), and get back to daily routine of minding one’s own business. Some self-important youth would rebel at this, and may turn pessimistic for the world is not adequately prepared to recognize his “greatness”, but most others reconcile to the fate and few better still accept it harmoniously while continuing their work despite all costs involved.
Surprisingly, of all things, commonsense believed to be the most commonly distributed: everyone thinks he is so well equipped with it that even those who are the hardest to satisfy in every other respect never desire more of it than they already have. It takes some time to learn that world would continue to be as foolish and ignorant as we have found it despite all gyan we hurl towards it.
Recently while involved in some discussion with a friend on the topic of romantic love, I contended that it’s not as much important as it’s usually considered, while he considered that it’s the reason for existence i.e. searching for a soul-mate blah blah blah…. Apparently, I had the upperhand (needless to say! Isn’t it? Haha) & for a while he was himself partly unsure of his philosophy. (I shall soon elaborate my arguments in another entry)
I was delighted at my ability to influence him (or so I was deceived), when one fine day all of a sudden he announced much to my astonishment that he was party to a relationship with a girl which had presently blossomed into love. I was heartily laughing at myself! (A commendable substitute while facing the inevitable!!)
The point here is not whether I’m right or not. That only time can decide. What I want to emphasize is that despite seeing some logic in my argument, my friend found it apt to dismiss it under the weight of his own prejudice. (Most men invariably do the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative! Disclaimer: Inapplicable to author)
Why? Man has no ears for what experience hasn’t taught him. If he agrees, then he already knows it. We must have in us the roots, atleast, of that which flowers out in others in order to be able to agree with them. In absence of those roots, all the voluminous books of the world & all the preaching by others fall on deaf ears and insulated mind.
A wise man’s kingdom ought to be within himself, or if he does look beyond, it should be extended only to a select few who’re free from prejudices, are open to change & possess the capability to analyse our work. Indeed, nothing can indicate the stronger possibility of falsehood than universal appreciation. J (that’s probably the reason why your friends are more popular than you….Ha ha ! )
Finally, it should be noted that there’s no altruism among individuals. Hence, it’s quite absurd to condemn others for not receiving us generously when we ourselves never do the same generally. Most of our relationships are guided and sustained by mutual needs & requirements rather than altruistic love & affection.
My point that is the only real choice we retain ever in life, is concerning ourselves. Others don’t owe us even decent behaviour (leave alone appreciation). Hence, one can turn inwards and resent the world, or one can take a decision to do their work regardless of the reactions of world. Either way, one must learn without much fuss to accept The World As It Goes.
PS: As you would already observed the essay could easily suffer from unreliable narrator! And that’s my whole point! Every person says that the others are wrong, and in this all are very much right!!
Tailpiece: It is interesting to see what Nietzsche says “What we see is not the long sought truth, but the reflection of our own desires”.

Comments

  1. The first paragraph is an excellent reflection of reality...could identify with the examples though :)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The concept of Dharma in Ramayana

The concept of Dharma is not adequately understood by Hindus themselves, not to mention others. Dharma is not a set of do’s and don’t’s or a simplistic evaluation of good and bad. It requires considerable intellectual exertion to even begin understanding Dharma, let alone mastering its use.

Is Dharma Translatable?
Few words of a language cannot be faithfully translated into another without injuring its meaning, context & spirit. English translations of Dharma are blurred and yield words like religion, sense of righteousness, discrimination between good and bad, morals and ethics or that which is lawful. All these fall short of fully grasping the essence of Dharma.
Every language has an ecosystem of words, categories and grammar which allow a user to stitch words together to maximum effect such that meaning permeates the text without necessarily being explicitly explained at each point. Sanskrit words such dharma, karma, sloka, mantra, guru etc., now incorporated in English, lose thei…

How Linguistic States strengthened Indian Unity

Be like a garland maker, O king; not like a charcoal burner.” --Mahabharata
[It asks the king to preserve and protect diversity, in a coherent way. The metaphor used is that of a garland, in which flowers of many colors and forms are strung together for a pleasing effect. The contrast is given against charcoal, which is the result of burning all kinds of wood and reducing diversity to homogeneous dead matter. The charcoal burner is reductionist and destroys diversity, whereas the garland maker celebrates diversity.]
Unification of Germany and Italy populated by similar people was achieved by huge armies spanning across decades. In sharp contrast, India under Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel managed to unite a much larger area divided by culture & languages within few years.
The European experience where new nations were carved over little differences in identity, made the Indian experiment appear poised for a breakup sooner than later. Yet, India managed to stay united though the journey wa…

Chetan Bhagat : His Literary Style and Criticism

Chetan Bhagat’s (CB) recent column created a furore, chiefly because of his audacity to speak for Muslim community and what many people conflate with his support for Narendra Modi’s Prime Ministerial ambitions.  
But what interested me most - and what this post would focus on - is questioning of his literary merit (or lack of it). Many journalists ridicule CB’s style of writing and his oversimplistic portrayals of characters sans nuance or sophistication. But I suspect this has more to do with the fact that his readers alone far outnumber the combined readers of many journalists - a point that many don’t appear capable of digesting.
No takers for layman’s language!
When Tulsidas rewrote Ramayana in Avadhi (a local contemporary dialect then), many conservative sections of society came down heavily upon him for defiling the sanctity of a much revered epic (originally written in Sanskrit). When Quran was first translated in Urdu (by Shah Abdul Qadir in 1798), it faced intense opposition by …