Hold On or Let Go?

Unintelligent & inconsiderate people (or communities or systems) who are associated with you can undo what you've done. It is bunkum to say everything is under your control. We live in an interdependent world & need to face the consequences of things we may not be responsible for. What matters is how you deal with your luck and get up every time you are knocked off, whilst understanding you may fall more frequently than you think (and accepting it). What ultimately matters is how long you are not willing to give up. What ultimately matters is how much of the fight is left within you and how much energy you can muster and re-build every time you fall or fail. 

When it is said that Life is not what happens to you but how you react to it, there is more to it than what meets the eye. It does not mean that you can still decide every single thing and get exactly what you want despite other external influences. It actually indicates that your life could be drastically different from what you intend it to be like and you better be prepared for it. You may not get what you want at times. You may have to change your plan and approach at times. You may have to adapt yourself to a new situation almost every time something external changes it. It may still mean lost opportunities. It may still mean a change of ideas. It may still mean a change of desires. 

There is a time when you can be obstinate and chase whatever you wanted to all your life, till you achieve it, despite a million set-backs and there are times when you must go with what emerges and be ready to change your own mind or desire. You must be in a position to decide what you cannot compromise on and what you will never ever give up on and what you will have to let go of in order to accommodate for the uncertainties of life.

One Truth

I'd never disagree with this, even if my life depended on it. :-) (And, if the person being subjected to such a phenomena also has a categorical view on what is right/wrong, nothing on Earth can possibly save the people associated with him/her!). 


When I looked up Born on Wikipedia, I found something amusing and interesting. He is supposed to have contributed significantly to the field of quantum mechanics. Now, whether he was able to discover the secrets of quantum mechanics because he did not believe in one single truth or vice versa is something we may never find out. ;-)


A supplementary caveat to this quote may, arguably, be that it should not matter as long as people keep their beliefs to themselves and do not try to manipulate others (directly or indirectly) to tow their line. So, if, for example, I believed that there is no God but made no attempts to brainwash or ridicule others (who believed that there is a God), I should not be considered an evil entity in society. But does my belief remain within me, in reality?


Not necessarily. Even if I made no conscious effort to change the mental make-up of others, if my belief is strong enough, it is likely to be reflected in my actions (if not via words of advice) and that may in turn influence someone to suddenly become a skeptic (sticking to the example above). Am I an evil entity in such a situation? 


I think not. After all, my genuine and embedded thoughts will naturally emerge via my actions, choices, behavior etc. What others are influenced by because of their self-motivated observations and introspective conclusions cannot be attributed to me. (A charismatic and inward looking leader or author may easily influence hundreds of people without even intending to)


What is, however, a deciding factor in concluding whether I am potentially an evil entity or not is whether, in spite of my strong convictions, I have the attitude and the ability to be open to listening to people who have opposite views and consider their views sincerely. The key point here is to not be casually dismissive of opinions different from one's own. The need is to be mature enough to understand that a different view is a result of different and deeply embedded experiences, contexts, mental abilities and so forth. I may not be convinced by an opposite view, ultimately, because of being married to my own thoughts or because of being unable to relate to foreign examples or values of the other party. But that is fine as long as I continue to be ready to listen to the same or a variation of the view in future and untiringly reconsider my views, inspect it from unexplored angles and see it from various distances. (Unfortunately, it is also, apparently, important to retain one's sanity during such situations ;-). While the nicer lot have to focus on not losing their own sanity, the, er, rowdy lot will have to focus on not driving the other person up the wall). 

In certain cases, it may be slightly simpler and involve letting go of a situation (by avoiding the exploration of alternative views till a more conducive situation comes up in the future) because you clearly see that the other person may never understand your point of view and accept the simultaneous existence of two views because of not having gone through an essential experience (that you, however, went through). 

More food for thought: 

RT @freedomsway: "Freedom from the desire for an answer is essential to the understanding of a problem." ~ Jiddu Krishnamurti

***************************************

No idea where I went with this post. :-) Whew. Let me know if I drove you up the wall, but for reasons different from those mentioned above. ;-)

Warning: A Wandering Mind

How does one deal with the paradox of “be yourself” and “adjust” (the famous term that used to be associated with Bangalore and its people before the former became a cosmopolitan city) at the same time? In the long run, is happiness a consequence of listening to your heart and doing things your way or “adjusting” with what is? What if the situation you are in involves entities outside of your well thought-out and deeply absorbed (or prejudiced) value-system or communication model or something else equally important? Is it okay to kill a little part of you – in a virtual sense - and adapt yourself to the situation while pretending to align with it even if you are not perhaps really doing so? Is it okay to live with the attitude that you may, after-all, change or things will change or, well, you can change things somewhere down the path? Does it make more sense to be practical and result-oriented rather than attach yourself to a subconsciously acquired (some of it may be natural, if genetic causes can be labeled as natural) value-system (or communication model or…..)? Or, more alarmingly, how do you know it is not your ego that wears a clever disguise and convinces you to be the way you are?

An episode involving the ethics of a social worker triggered me off to muse about the identity of the so-called “truth” and the validity of a black and white world as opposed to a grayish world. I then attempted to see it from the perspective of the Mahabharatha, when a brave woman I know responded and declared that Sri Krishna may have won the war for the Pandavas by deceit but he achieved his goal (justifiable to some and not so justifiable to others) he set out to achieve and that is all, perhaps, that mattered. Outsiders, she said, only watch and debate his methods. How do you blend your thinking and action? If Sri Krishna is the answer to today’s ruthless, ambiguous and vague world, then what is the importance of the unquestioned obedience and love that Lord Rama is identified with? Go ahead. Share your wisdom. Some of you are capable of running a correspondence course on the human psychology in the context of relationships/communities, like the Master might say! ;-)