A BUNCH OF THOUGHTS

1. The history of thought does not date back to the period when one human being would have wronged another, or when one human being was betrayed by another. Our memories as a society does not date back to those days, likewise, we do not remember when the time was, we for the first time felt cheated or wronged in our childhood. 

But we remember the instances when we have forgiven someone. Forgiveness is a trait so courageous and so courteous at the same time that it is barely leaves any feat of strength untouched. Remember, if someone has done some harm to you, and you are having some difficulty forgiving them, come back to yourself, just keep in mind that you are not currently strong enough. Do not return the harm. Come back, introspect, grow, and one day, you will forgive them easily. It is like lifting weights. 100 kgs not in one day, but in 6 months for sure. 

2. Indians are into meaning. We have festivals so full of meanings. Diwali has a meaning associated with it. I have never seen a festival which does not have less than 3 meanings to it. I do not know if it is a good thing or not, but surely the sweets on any festival are delicious. So, I guess it's good. 

3. Come back to home. You let your perspective wander in the world. You tried seeing yourself through eyes of others for so long. It is like your eyes have been travelling from one person to other and judging yourself. Come back to home, Darling! This is where you rest. A home where no one judges you. This is for those who have left their homes and now do not feel homely at their homes since psychologically their homes have been snatched away from them in course of time, Come back to yourself. You are your own home. Your safe space. Here you can be anything. Do not make it hard for yourself. You are the dearest child of this household. 

4. Love bombing is a term this generation uses for excessive love showers when one shows to other. I think we should not shy away if we are an empath. I am an empath. I feel for the whole world. Why not love someone to the fullest? The problem is having a stable relationship is as political as having a stable government. Sometimes too much idealism makes the Government fall and so does too much love to a relationship. And people do not know how to reciprocate too much love. 

But This is the quality of love that it makes the other person loosen up. However cynical, narcissistic or cruel the other person be, the sight of a man crying in love, is unbearable to the strongest of the few. 

This generation is self-aware generation. They have coined terms for all their flaws today. Words like: "Cringe", "love bombing", "Zesty", "corny" are all those human sentiments and part of human psyche that humans always had but they did not name it, so they were not identifiable. This generation has coined terms and by virtue of that, it is today, most easy to categorize people on the basis of these terms. 

And the irony is this is the generation which is called post-modern, that is rejecting all labels and categories and so on. Today man does not need to reject labels. They need to embrace labels. Be an empath, a card-carrying empath, be a card-carrying cringe. You will be mentally saner, if you do not fight your personality. 

WHY PSYCHOANALYSIS IS A MORE RADICAL FIELD THAN PSYCHOLOGY?

 One thing that attracts me towards Psychoanalysis is actually two things. One is my own pathological need to understand. And there is something very unusual about this. This is not some sacred curiosity, unravelling the secret bullshit. I think it is a kind of enjoyment that I feel without feeling guilty. Like, I can have fun with friends but there is always a guilt that I am not working but if I and reading psychoanalytic texts, it feels like I am having fun with friends, but also, I am working. This constant simultaneous satisfaction of ID and Superego is what I call a pathological need to understand. 

Secondly, Psychoanalysis, in my opinion, a more radical discipline like Philosophy. It is always Meta. It is always deconstructing the main superficial themes of society that are prevalent which sort of makes it like a Detective's job. Like, Psychology will ask, how to live a more satisfying and happy life? On the same lines, Psychoanalysis asks, 'What does it mean to be happy for an individual? What is satisfying? How do the two correlate? Do we always feel satisfied after happiness? Why there is a need to feel satisfied? Is it normal? How to determine what is normal? And so on and so on. 

My two attractions can be seen in my liking to particular people in Psychoanalysis. On one hand, I am afraid of Freud and Lacan and their mysterious and taboo seeming concepts, I do, however, Like Zizek's works. It somewhat makes me afraid but also, wants me to do it, in what sense, in a sense a child wants to have a ride on a roller coaster. 

On the other hand, my attraction to India and Indian culture and to understand my cultural psyche attracts me to writings of Dr. Salman Akhtar. His theories and understanding of Psychoanalytic concepts make me nostalgic and is more self-affirming. In simple poetic terms, I think I have found a home in Akhtar's writings. I find mystics, I find Geeta, I find spirituality and I find Buddha. In a weirdly amusing way, Psychoanalysis has become a little house near the dark forest for me, I daily go out of this house for an adventure in the woods, only to get scared further and run back to my home and then again repeat. 

In this process, I understand some very crucial aspects of my own life and of psychoanalysis in general. What would have happened if I hadn't discovered Zizek? if I hadn't discovered Akhtar? I don't know, A perpetual dissatisfaction in search of meaning and being perplexed about the desperation may be. 

With this, comes a need to write, write my understandings and write about some realizations. I am really afraid of the word "Research and innovation" because I do not really understand this job. Whether it is a detective's job, and we have to find already existing concepts or is it a poet's job where we have to invent concepts, in some way, hallucinate new things. It is somewhere in between. Something sort of sitting under a Kalpvriksha. Research is like sitting under the Kalpvriksha (A mythological tree in Indian Mythology which gives whatever you think, not what you desire, like whatever comes in your mind, even if don't want it, it appears). You imagine something and then it appears. and then you discover it. It is as if the link between your mind and the material concrete reality is so strong and the distinction so shallow that one can easily go from mind to matter and matter to mind. One must be cautious and afraid enough not to imagine demons. Or maybe do. But always run back to your home if the demon starts chasing you. This mysterious nature of psychoanalytic research attracts and scares me simultaneously

. 

"SAB SARKAR TUMHI SE HAI...!"

Sometimes I wish to dissolve myself in you. Sometimes I feel we are not so much different. Sometimes I feel why not you come to see me. Sometimes I feel this breath in my body is you only. I can feel your touch on my mind, my soul. What else I am but you? 

Some days I wish I get converted in a stone statue of yours. Somedays, I wish to be in your feet as a flower. Sometimes I feel nobody knows you who you are but me. Sometimes, this feeling turns into frustration. But then sometimes, I think other than you, is there anything else in this universe? 

Between these thoughts, I lose my mind. But this insanity makes me feel so ecstatic. I dance in your name; I chant your name like a child says "mommy". I sometimes think, whether you are true or not. But now I have left this thought in you. You are in me. Who cares if that is true or not. Is my happiness true? Because it is due to you. Is my peace true? Because it is due to you. 

Who I was when I did not know you? A baggage of imperfection. Who you were? You were divine, My lord! Why not you give me a chance to serve you, I think often. But then, I see, I exist, this is already serving you. This life is your life. I am living in your behalf now. 

This body will one day decay. My mind will one day vanish, with a transition to you, I take pride that you made me realize, I am not the body. Nor am I, my mind. Nor am I a doer, nor am I a doee. I am you. So pleasant is the experience of being you. You are in smiles, you are in my tears, you are in my laughs, and you are in my jokes. 

I laugh to make you laugh. I study to make you feel interesting. I want to be something so that you become something. But what can I become or make you which you are not already. 

Some people take their lives in love. Narayan! My life is already at your service. I am now in complete surrender to you. Make me or break me, it is your whim. 

Righteous people are your people, my lord. Give them your blessing. You are their only hope and lord and Saviour. People of reason are courageous my lord. But people of faith are fragile. Give us all, people of faith, a place in your feet my lord. 

You made knowledge to quench the reason. But what else than your divine love quenches the thirst of your devotee, Narayan! Humlog ka kaun hai maalik! Aap hi na hain! Aapse zyada toh kuch aur hota nhi hai, Aur aap se kam maangna humko sweekaar nhi hai. 

"Hum aapke darwaaze pe prem ki bheekh maangne aaye hain, Prabhu! Prem de dijiye!"

"Aur badle mein ye imperfect sharir, ye ashuddha mann, aur ye aatma, jo aap hi ki jhalak hai, le lijiye." 

Mai pukaarta hun prabhu ko, Aur aawaaz sada sada ke liye uski. Mai uska, Tann uska, Chota sa jeevan uska. 

NOTES FROM GEETA: CHAPTER 1

1. Well begun is half done, said Shakespeare. How Geeta begins? By a curiosity, but a fickle minded curiosity. What questions you ask tells a lot about you as a person. Most people ask, how can I live a happy life, how can I be satisfied? How will I achieve what I want to achieve? 

Why do you think God never shows his face? He is scared of the thirst in humans he has created. Even in reading Geeta, nobody wants to read Geeta to understand what God wants to say. They want to read Geeta today, so that they excel in their fields, they console their minds when their lifestyle is highly competitive and therefore violent. 

Everyone wants to make the God stand with him, but who wants to stand with God in what he says? 

Dhritrashtra definitely does not want that. A selfish, egoistic person always has complaints with God. He has a list of injustices and misfortunes, and he blames God for all of them. Contrast it with a man who is Dharmic, is a man, who is most of the time just curious why something happened to him. He genuinely wants to know, Why and what happened to him. 

I rename myself as "Why-What Kumar", signifying that one must always be value neutral towards events, do not judge them as bad or good, rather ask, why, and what? And you will find, a specific ignorance of yours, a specific bondage of yours. 

2. Humans feel a constant need to justify their actions and when they cannot, they start feeling what Arjun felt. Why do humans need to justify? Who are they justifying. It seems that there is always a photograph in the hands of a human, and every time he does something, he reminds himself, that he is the same person as the photograph. But why? Why do we need a reference definition of yourselves? Why do we need a photograph at the first place? 

It makes us feel homely. Otherwise, what explanation will one give of why I am here doing what. Right now, I am an advanced species of monkeys sitting on a wooden bed, trying to hit keys of plastic and looking at a screen which throws light? 

Our mind constantly justifies our behavior, as "Yes! this is what Vibhat would do!" because Vibhat is a moral person. But, why? No answers.

The need to justify good work as a personality trait and bad work as personality trait comes from a need to keep building our self (ego). So, good or bad works, just contribute to ego and hence are all bad. 

3. Why do humans find it easy to follow cultures and why society dictates? It is because it is energy consuming to think at every step. To sleep and act according to habit is so easy, to think and act according to conscience is so stressful. 

4. The first chapter is a story about a weak, loser called Arjun, who used to take pride in he, being the best archerer in the world. See, how destiny works, it tested the so called best archerer by putting his own relatives in front of him and telling him, "OH! SO YOU ARE BEST ARCHERER? NOW, LETS SEE IF YOU CAN KILL YOUR OWN PEOPLE?" 

5. All humans of pride, which includes almost everyone in this universe, take pride in their ego, get challenged by Destiny, where they have to choose between two identities, "Archerer" and "Arjun: A Pandava". 
The truth is, for a person who has decided that he is an archerer, the whole world is just a target. No mothers, no fathers, no friends, only targets. Hit your own mother, hit your own father, only then you are the best archerer. Otherwise, you are just a loser. Loser Arjun. 

6. Arjun is confused in what to protect and what to let go. He thought he will become the best archerer and best son at the same time. Poor, pathetic Arjun. 

7. I pity this man. He is weak, sad and a complete sucker. 

8. Krishna, on the other hand, smiles. Why does he smile? Let's look at who is Krishna? A man, who lost his love in Vrindavan. Who never saw his natural mother till late. One who was fostered by another mother. This man has seen life to the darkest. And yet this man smiles. 

People, who have seen the life's darkest twists and turns, keep smiling like Krishna. They know, they always know, however hard life may seem, it can go even worse, and you cannot do anything about it. 

9. To ask for meaning is blasphemy. To ask for mercy is merciless. To ask for death is cowardice, to ask for life is stupid. Not asking and smiling is the answer. Jesus never asked God why he had to suffer. Even if he would have, God would have remained silent. Also, there is no God. 

10. Bhagwat Geeta is the song of God. What does God say? He does not say anything. Silence is the song of God. We interpret the silence in different ways. Krishna Geeta, Ashtavakra Geeta, Ribhu Geeta are all interpretations of the silence. All interpretations are coping mechanisms in this world. 

No meaning at all is the right meaning of silence. God says nothing since God is nothing. Suffer in silence. Smile in Silence. That is what the message of God is. 

11. Do not make God your coping mechanism. Do not try to make God your defense. Suffer boldly. You are son of God. Face it. Kill your mother if you have to, kill your father if you have to. There are no moral compasses other that in your mind. Freedom from mind would mean freedom from all these moral compasses. 

12. Jesus died to show that God suffers like you do. Nobody is free from this world's natural processes. Krishna died in a jungle. No meaning. Just, he had to. So, you have to. Embrace death of yours and your loved ones as inevitable. 

13. Arjuna is dispassionate. Actually, no work in the world has been done within the binary of passion and dispassion. All work has been done through a dutiful human, who has lost passion in the way of his struggles and is not willing to give up and hence is not dispassionate of actions. But the swing has to move. Once, a passionate archerer, is now a depressed loser lying there in his mediocrity. From there will rise the synthesis, a mature man, who does not attach his self-worth with that he does and how he does. He is the mature man; He is the superman. 

14. Krishna smiles, Arjuna weeps, and the first chapter is over. The depression is severe, and it means, the rise will be even greater, just this time, Arjuna, will not feel a thirst to become the best. He will be out of the rat race of archery. 

PDS AND ASSOCIATED HUMILIATION

Government gives ration to people who themselves cannot afford it. But ha! here's the catch. How to know who can or cannot afford it? It is a complex problem. Otherwise, why, a family like mine, with so many privileges would be taking ration on APL cards? 

It is ultimately finding loopholes in the system that then grabbing every free stuff you can grab from the Government. My father, who is jobless from a long time, is very proficient in these jobs. And honestly, I cannot feel more humiliated than this. I mean, just think about it. You, a well fed, privilege born man, in 21st century, instead of toiling hard, working hard and earning, rely on fucking government to supply you with free food? This is shameful. 

Women of my family desperately force me to stand in queues to get that. I, as a self-respecting man, of 24, feel hell awkward standing there. The people in those lines are not underprivileged at all, there are people who left their job because now, they get free ration, so they think there is no need to work now. These people, who take ration from PDS are basically cunning lower middle-class people, who can work hard but they don't. They in turn, take away the ration which should be for BPL people. 

The humiliation I felt, can be felt by any self-respecting man, if he possesses even an ounce of it. Actually, what happens, the self-respect concept in the society, is just a social derivative. What society considers respectful and what not, eventually decides for these people, whether this is something worth their self-respect or not. And since, these lower middle-class societies are in a continuous moral decline, no standards whatsoever is left of self-respect. The last self-respecting man I saw in my family was my 75 years old Grandfather. After that, no man, or no woman, in my family is of that standard which I consider self-respectful. 

This, sometimes, reflect in my behavior also. I recall my days as a teenager, begging to a girl for a little ounce of love that she could offer me. I think I would never like to associate that past me with myself now. No self-respectful man should beg. Either for money, or for love. If circumstances are so bad, die alone. But do not beg for it. It might be considered as toxic masculine behavior according to today's polity, but let it be. I think anyone, man or woman, deserves to protect his/her ego since the whole world runs on this matrix fuel, ego. 

Coming back to PDS, especially women of my family, this desperation to get free stuff? Really? with the same mouth, how can you claim your false caste pride or brahmin genes and bullshit. I just wish one thing, that too to God, make me work so hard and accustomed to hard work, that even if I remain unsuccessful, I do not go to a fucking PDS shop to get free ration. I am really to toil for fucking 15 hours a day, but I do not wish to go to the soul-sucking fucking obnoxious place called the PDS shop. But I will have to. Because your present is shaped by people around you, and if the people around you are fucking losers, so are you. 

I see my grandfather. He remains, the bold and brave man that a man should be. He might be a fascist in tendencies and ideology, but at least he does not beg to get free ration. I idealize my grandfather in this regard. Hell, lot better than his kids. shameful, utterly disgusting. 

You know, this gives me a drive to strive for a healthy and intellectually superior life. An intellectually superior life is a life where the material needs are fulfilled to the extent of privilege. Where the mind is free to think, and the mind is full of self-respect of what I have achieved and what I have hustled for. This is what I am fighting for. An intellectually uplifted fucking life. 

DADIMA: STRONGEST WOMAN I SAW IN MY LIFE

I do not have much to write about my grandma. Here is a poem in Magahi, I wrote about my Grand ma some 2-3 years ago.  

दादी माँ, सुनअ नअ, 

एगो बात कहीवअ,

बहुत दिन से इ बात कहेके मन हेयअ,

कहीतअ न ही, 

लजयला नियन हो जाइत ही, 

बड़ी दिन से मन हे कि माथा रख के तोर गोदी में

खूब रोऊँ मन भर, 

साँस हो जाये भारी, चाहे गला सूख जाये, 

रोये के मन हे! 

काहे? तू पूछबअ हमरा मालूम हे, 

फिर एतना रोइते रोइते का जबाब बोलम हम, 

खुद हमरा न पता, 

तू भी रोये लगबअ, पता हे, 

साथ में दूनो दादी पोता, 

खूब रोये के, का? 

फिर मिल के सूजी के हलुआ बनाएल जाई, 

कहअ तअ हम ही बना देम,

लेकिन तू हीं बनईहअ न! 

हमर दादी माँ ए ग्रेड के हलुआ बनावअ हत! 

एही न हम अऊर सब दादी से कहअ हली! 

हम का बनती हल कुछो, जे तोर हलुआ न खईती हल! 

मिठास जे हल हलुआ के, आज हमर आवाज़ हे, 

सोन्ह सोन्ह हलुआ नियन बात करेके गुन तोर पोता में कैसे आयल? 

हमरा बना देलअ दादी माँ, बूढ़ाढ़ी में भी, माँ अईसन पाल देलअ, 

हमनी किहाँ कहाँ अईसन होवअ हे, 

कि तोरा पे कविता लिख के तोरा सुना देती हल, 

हम सुना न सकीं, लजा न जा हीवअ,

फिर रो देबवअ सामने तोहर, तोरो रोवे पड़तवअ, 

जाये दअ! बस अईसेंही एक दिन नौकरी लगे दअ एगो! 

मान लअ आईएस बन जबबअ न! 

कोई दिन अईसेंही कह देबवअ, 

"कि दादी माँ बना देलअ तू अऊ दादा जी हमरा!"

मिट्टी से सोना कर देलअ!

DAAJI: MY SUBALTERN GRANDFATHER

 "Probably he is never going to read this, and I think it is better he doesn't."

The earliest memories of mine with my grandfather are me, eating with him in his Thali. He used to put rice in one side of the plate, and I used to eat with him. We used to chant "Bhojan mantra", a hymn that is meant to be recited in Hindu families before eating. Recently, I noticed that however I have stopped doing the Bhojan mantra, but I continue to eat food by putting it at the same corner of the plate. This is the extent of the effect of my grandfather, Daaji, as I call him even now. 

Second memory is me, walking with my grandfather to bring vegetables for home and asking him what he thinks about Gandhiji, or Subhash Chandra Bose, or some other freedom fighter of the country. it is quite interesting that my later interests in life have been dictated by my early childhood memories. 

He used to play cricket with me when I was a kid. Underarm bowling, and I used to hit six with my plastic bat. 

One of the things, my grandfather said to me, was what his father told him on his deathbed. "Apne Thaga Jaiha Babu, Lekin kabhi kekro Thage ke koshish mat kariha!" or "It is better to get be fooled by someone than to attempt to befool someone. The rationale behind such a statement is religious as we understand in our Family. 

We come from a Ramanujacharya Sampradaya Brahmins which asserts absolute devotion and Bhakti to the one Ishwar to attain salvation. The rationale was, since the one is always watching you, stupidity is not a crime in eyes of God, Cunningness is. Evil intentions are already a crime. So, did follow My grandfather all his life. 

Earliest memories of mine, is a sub-conscious listening to him chanting at 3-4 AM in the morning, 

कामिहि नारि पिआरि जिमि लोभिहि प्रिय जिमि दाम।
तिमि रघुनाथ निरंतर प्रिय लागहु मोहि राम! 

Or, like a lusty man, falls for women, like a greedy man falls for Money, Likewise, O Raghunath, make me fall for you!

In years to come, this passion towards religion became my guiding light to life in General. The only way to live life is through living a life of passion and commitment to your meaning, God, or otherwise. 

My Grandfather was a sub-altern. His voice was rendered mute because from an early age, he fell in hands of A fascist Ideology of RSS. He follows it to the Heart. He doesn't realize how cancerous it is, probably he will never realize it now. 

My Grandfather made his path amid darkness. A village where nobody was educated more than 10th standard. His Elder brother dropped out of school after 10th class, He kept going and He completed his diploma in Electrical engineering and hence was able to give us a very good starting point. 

The stories of him inspires me every now and then. It will keep me inspired till the end of my life. In times of extreme sadness, it is his voice that is projected inside me. My early childhood development is highly influenced by his thoughts. Later did I realize, many idols of my Life were just his projective transferences of his image on others. For example: Dr. Salman Akhtar, Albert Einstein etc. 

My emotions are too full of him and his sacrifices. He made me who I am. However, my views of looking at the world will always differ from his, but the ability to dare to see the world differently, is what I learnt from him. 

I will end with an anecdote of fight with him that I had. I was probably 8 years old. I told him in anger, "Daaji, Dekhiye, aap jab sahi hote hain toh hum agree karte hain aapse, lekin aap jaan lijiye, har aadmi har time sahi nhi hota hai!", or "Daaji, look, when you are right, you are right! But no man is always right!". 

To which, he replied, "Aadmi galat ho sakta hai, Lekin Dada toh humesha sahi hota hai na!" or A man can be incorrect, but a grandfather is always right, isn't he? 

To which, I further argued with him, but now, I realized, He was right, Grandfathers are always right!

LOVELESS CREATURES COPE WITH POWER!

Birds are loved, so they never chase more than their nests, 

Fishes are loved, so they never chase more than food, 

Humans are not, so they form governments, they marry and such. 

A general perception about this is that Power is the ability to influence the decision making of others. This is the Political science definition of Power. And since, the whole discipline of Political science is concerned with how humans make their collective decisions, a more powerful person will be a politically more influential person. I call it, "Zindagi ko Dekhne ka Raajnitik Chashma!" 

Through this lens, you see every quality, instinct or behavior of humans as a tactic to grab hold of power. This view presumes, "why else would one person help other person if there are no selfish motives (Swaarth). People, of this school of thought like to call themselves mature, and their viewpoint objective. 

Any other viewpoint for them is either a childish or an obscener name that they give, "Ideal". 

But surely there exists other viewpoints, who do not subscribe to this aggressive lens of vision. This school does not claim to be all universal, rather its claims are somewhat subjective and local. It envisions that the same power relations can be viewed as people lacking love acting in particular ways. 

I call this, "Zindagi ko dekhne ka Adhyatmika Chashma!"  These people say, before asking how people collectively organize themselves and do collective decision-making, we should ask, what are we all doing on this planet? What are we going to end as? What are the coordinates of meaning available? Of course, these are questioning whose answer nobody knows, and hence, the first school rejected to engage in these. The only answer seems, we form collectives since we want security and freedom. But then the Adhyatmika school asks, why are you insecure at the first place? And why you have an obsessive need to pre-determine and ascertain everything for yourself in advance? From the breath in your throat to the food that you eat to the sleep that you get, don't you feel it is provided to you by this planet? And your worries will not matter. One day if suddenly it stops, which government will do what? What collective decision-making will save you? 

Then, it proceeds to give its version of truth. It says, Love thy existence. Love everything you got. From the breath to the water to the food to the shelter, do not search further security. If you feel insecure, Love thy insecurity. Children who were not loved as a child try to find that love in an adult relationship and they wish for a secure relationship and because of that, they tend to be controlling. Don't become a controlling child of Earth. Don't try to regulate everything. 

Do not try to fix everything. These are not imperfections. These are qualities. Your desire for beauty has made the differently beautiful insecure. Your desire for goodness and morality has made the differently moral and contextually moral as evil. Your categorizations made this world a duality. Do not categorize. Do not sort. Study without dissections. 

Work on your strengths as you hug yourself. Do not see your weaknesses as weaknesses but see them as differently strengths. All of your qualities are not just of market value, they are like fragrance of a flower, they are intrinsically beautiful. Love someone, Love all. Find someone and have in between a life, that does not feel like a conflict of power capture. That does not seem like a strive to reach somewhere. Life is all here and now. With all its insecurities and unfreedoms, it is but a complete package, the desire to reach to a more favorable place is but an aim to have power, A "will to power" if you will say. 

God works, but "will to power" does not. If you do not believe in God, believe in Love. Love works, Will to power does not. Love is not a power grabbing move. However, you see it like this only. For you, someone doing something for someone is the power of influence of the other. Love is how people talk. People feel becoming the other while remaining the same. Empathy is the base ground for love. You will probably never know. You are too wise. You are too reasonable. You are too un-naive. 

Finally, the happiest and the most peaceful people in the world will not be people who organize to form collectives, governments and marriages. The most peaceful and happiest will be those who love where they are, what they are, what their peers are, what their life is. Those who will remain ever obliged to existence for their life. Only loveless creatures will want to become kings or prime ministers or heads. Loving creatures have already become what they wished for. They become humans. Now, where they get a chance to shower their love from, is immaterial, they can be anything, from musician to Scientist, to Prime minister to beggar. 

Unfortunates are those who view loving people as powerless. Fortunate is the one who view power hungry people as loveless. 

Marxism and OCD

My problem, that I discussed with someone few days back, is the same problem I am struggling since a long time. This is my problems with Marxists and Communists too. This obsession to do a major havoc in the world order, the compulsion to cure the world of its mysteries and what they do, they wait for the historical process to take its form, in short, they wait for the revolution. 

Life, as we know it, stands right here right now. This mass level politics that wishes to cure the whole international order, why doesn't it act? Probably it fears that without a solid plan, it would fail like it failed in Soviet and China. My concern is that the goal is so big that no plan would ever be perfect to execute this. And that's why I call communism as the plan of extreme emergency. 

I believe in a kind of individual help to people. People need it, in some form or other. People need love, attention, they need opportunities, they need material conditions. I will be contended in life if I am able to help at least 10 people in life. 

So, my message to communists and probably they are already knowing it, is to keep thinking but do not stop living. 

I do believe in the best of conscience, that Karl Marx was the greatest socio-political thinkers of all time and Communism is the best manifestation of humanly love on the socio-political reality. No other thought resembles so close to Love in its entirety. Communism is the manifestation of God as a thought on Earth. 

But, the fact remains, this thought, like God, remains unmanifested. Till it gets manifested, And I do believe it will be one day, I want comrades to be the most loving, the most caring creatures on this planet. 

Comrades, we have a mission to accomplish. But not at the cost of love. But Love should be both means and ends to our struggle. 

Laal Salaam

Best Regards,

Vibhat 

AN UNDER-DEVELOPED IDEA I STILL HAVE TO THINK UPON

Recently, I listened to a podcast on International Psychoanalytic Association (IPA)'s website, with the title, "The relentlessness of life extinct as a source inconsolability and greed". 

My concerns regarding this are the following. In general, every one of us have some or more amount of living drive and life instinct to call it such. But, sometimes, it is the excess of life and desire to live that makes us desperate and sad.

The negativity, often associated with the Todestreib, or Death drive, is in my opinion and also in Opinion of Dr. Salman Akhtar is not correct. It derives its conception from the very nature of human psyche of defeat. Human ego gives up after a point. He realizes that the quest for ultimate satisfaction and the quest of perpetual gratification are two different journeys. 

Usually, Life instinct works on the following formula, 

Pleasure => Gratification => Satisfaction

But, when this link breaks unhealthily, as in, Pleasure does not lead to gratification or gratification, even sustained gratification does not lead to satisfaction, here we find a problem. 

We can see this through economics intuition also. What is the concept of Diminishing marginal utility. It is assumed that it is human nature that sustained supply of a particular gratification will definitely make the human satisfied. But, here, in numerous cases, we find that sustained gratification does not lead to satisfaction. 

है कहाँ तमन्ना का दूसरा क़दम या रब

हम ने दश्त-ए-इम्काँ को एक नक़्श-ए-पा पाया
~ Gaalib 

The issue with these individuals is not a deficiency of the life instinct, but rather an excess of it. Additionally, there is a problem of insufficient death instinct—the absence of the quality to surrender oneself.

I hope to develop this idea in more length and depth in coming coarse of time. 

SOME RANDOM THOUGHTS

Is Pain Necessary to grow?

Yesterday, When I was at the Gym, one of the guys there, a junior to me, He is in 8th standard asked for my earphones for a while to listen to music while his set is going on. I gave it to him, but then he said something like, "You are not annoyed or angry because of this, right?" and I said, of course not. Why do you think so? But he did not listen and was in zone now. 

That got me thinking, at this age, he must have experienced many passive aggressive and many times openly aggressive people, to take such a light matter into consideration. He literally thought I would be angry at him for asking for earphones. You know a part of me thinks, no one in this world should ever experience cruelty and nobody deserves anger, toxicity, and violence. But again, I feel, how will they grow if they do not experience such hardships. 

The relationship between negative experiences and resilience and growth is well-established. But We casually say, we grow through negative circumstances. Ever thought that this might be the biggest coping mechanism employed by all of mankind. We grow through pain. How did we associate being numb to pain as growth? Why don't we see Numbness to pain as insensitivity? These are some questions which provide an alternative perspective towards progressiveness. 

What would have progressiveness meant? If there were no systemic and emotional hardships in people's lives? Too utopian I know, but still, I would like to engage you in a thought experiment. Suppose no human ever misbehaved with any other human. Suppose no system ever exploited man's labor. Then what would have been our definition of progressiveness. 

It would be softer skills, like, who knows singing? Who can play cricket? Who is kinder of us? Who understands complex emotions better? A world where fighting evil and negative experiences is not considered a special skill would be a place where arts would have thrived a lot. There, Science would have been like Arts only. 

I don't know. But I sometimes think. Is pain necessary to define progressiveness or growth? I leave you with this question. 

Is Hope a good thing? 

I mean, honestly, I do not know. Hope forms part of life instinct. But, I wonder, what the lowest margins of our society hope for? Do they hope at all? How do they live? Do their wishes limit to the next bread or the next work or the next ounce of alcohol? 

I see what rich people and people of middle classes hope. They have enough conditions to hope. I think Life instinct occurs in people who have a life. Hope can only occur in people who are living. marginalized people live like lifeless beings. They do not hope, they do not despair. 

I used to think Despair must be the saddest thing on Earth. But, Unfortunately, the saddest thing on earth is not been able to live such that the concept of hope and despair comes in your mind. 

A nice conversation

Yesterday, I met someone online. And talked about a variety of topics from Lacan to Psychoanalysis to Philosophy to many other things. Her name was Riddhima. She was a Political Science Graduate from University of Delhi. I never had witnessed someone with such a varied field of interest as me. She was into philosophy, political science and psychoanalysis as me. 

A really good conversation. Hope, I can talk to her more often. But I do not want her to think I am some creep. I just like our conversations. It is not very often that you meet a girl who is so well-versed in thoughts and ideas. 

MEN WRITTEN BY WOMEN

 I am a tree that has traded height for leaves, 
Teach me to bear leaves once again, oh bird!
I am a mountain, whose snow ate all texture, 
Teach me, O River, to flow like you again!
I am an ocean, whose depth traded its waves,  

Teach me, O moon, to dance with you again! 

The phenomenon of "Men written by women", is what has relieved me in recent days. What is it? And what is it for me? And why is it so special in my eyes? 

In the wake of a new and egalitarian consciousness, when women began to assert their choices, claim on rights and so on, so they fashioned a new kind of choices, through cinema and literature. This was the "Men written by women". Here, women, wrote men, who were perfect combinations of tenderness and traditional masculinity. Men, who were caring enough to understand complex emotions and yet strong enough to not break down to their emotional crises. Men, who were midway between Traditionally masculine alpha and sigma, and the coy boy looking soft guys. In Novels of Jane Austen, you find a character of Mr. Darcy, is an example of men written by women. Another example would be Mr. Newt Scamander from the "Fantastic beasts and where to find them", series. 

These fictional men project what women had for a long time in their desires for an ideal partner, but they could not assert his because of the patriarchal repression of their sexualities and their fathers, brothers and husbands and even lovers trying to control their sexualities and choices of their lives. 

What does it mean to me? Personally, it makes me feel relieved. First of all, the women find it emancipating that they actually know what they want in a partner. Second, the difference between the two different gazes, namely, the masculine gaze and the feminine gaze is that Women written by men, the exemplary of masculine gaze, reduces women to just sum of their body parts and a little bit of behavioral quirks. Like: A soft woman, whose whole personality is how submissive and gullible she is, something of a Damsel in distress. Another example of this is the binary between a "Good woman" and a "Wamp" usually a part of 70s or 80s Bollywood cinema. The viewing of an assertive woman as a bad woman, and a woman who does not have a single dimensional personality to cater to men's needs as being a Wamp is how men projected their desires. It is not really the faults of men, in my opinion. Hegemony and unprecedented authority to decide for everyone what is right makes you do something which is not even good for you sometimes. 

Men, written by women, on the other hand, frees women and men simultaneously. Men, from their traditional gender role, it does not however totally discard it, but it definitely gives them some space to breath. Moreover, the men written by women, project a healthy masculinity, a masculinity which is not insecure for power and authority and cries in hue for more and more. A masculinity which is the synthesis of a traditional toxic masculine man and a highly effeminate man, someone, who is secure in his vulnerabilities. Someone, who works on his problems and does not become defensive when someone calls him out for his weaknesses. He embraces reality as a friend. He is vulnerable in public without being ashamed. He is strong enough to rise from that vulnerability. 

A concern occurs in minds of few that is this idealization not hegemonic again? that now, women want to project their "Ideal version" of a man, on society and men need to just agree. Here, we need to distinguish between the simple looking terms of "Demand" vs "Control". 

Women demand some traits in men. That is not to say they want to control. Men controlled women for ages. When a woman demands a man to be of a certain height, for example, it is a dating preference. She may also negotiate about it in her mind if she met a really nice short guy. But, Men, demand something like: Oh! Women I should date or marry should be a virgin. Now, this is not a dating preference. This, by virtue of its permanence quality, this is a kind of retrospective control measure that not only you want to control her sexuality when you date her, but you also want to control her sexuality when you did not even know her, that is, retrospectively. This is textbook "Control". 

I am not saying that women do not try to control men. On Individual level, Dating and courtships and marriage are no more than political decision making. If we take the quote, "Personal is Political" literally, you will see elements of Politics in the bedroom. Negotiations, demands, Protests, trying to control the other, power struggle are all part of this new era dating. But on a collective level, "Men written by women", in my opinion, is not at all, an attempt to control, in fact, it is an attempt to freedom for both men and women. Men, to eventually come out of their shells of masculinity standards that they continuously try to fit in and try at least, to put on the table, little vulnerabilities. How to do that? Start listening to someone who knows how to be vulnerable in public, probably your partner. Listen and learn, how to be vulnerable. 

This is an era where men should embrace emotional learning from the women around them. Listen, learn, do not judge, try to understand complex emotions since you have to understand your own emotions later, Cry, cry often, cry alone, cry in public but also learn how women hold themselves and conduct well in public and do not depend upon anyone to collect them after being vulnerable in public. 

I am not saying, woman do not make mistakes, and all learning has to happen from women to men. But a great deal of emotional intelligence is due in men. How to console a friend in need, how to hug a friend, how to start conversations with your father in such a way that he also loosens up. All these and a bunch more. 

 Whether the demands can be cent percent fulfilled is something nobody can commit. But we hope to free ourselves from our problems. Be a human being first. A human being has to be strong and tender at the same time, isn't it? So, the emotional learning I am talking about has a lot to do with unlearning patriarchal conditioning. I really hope, it helps someone reading this. Emancipation lies within, what we desire, we become. I desire to be a "Man written by women". Do you? 

GANDHI AND INDIA'S FATHERLY CRISIS: A PSYCHOANALYTIC VIEW

Mahatma Gandhi is called the "Father of this 77- or 78-year-old nation we call India, or Bharat". Who called him so? Probably Subash Chandra Bose while he was in exile. Now, the relations between Bose and Gandhi were quite interestingly analyzed and the tensions regarding the views on freedom struggle is well known. I do not know whether we should, but we definitely can view Bose and Gandhi's difference as the difference between a paternal authority, a father and an adolescent Male child. This view, in my opinion, will also be considered a taboo in the field of political thought. But, here, I am not going to dwell in this. 

My concern is with Relations of India as a nation and Gandhi as a leader. What do leaders usually contribute to the Nation building of a particular nation? Is not it quite comparable to the psych-sexual development of a child and a child's personality and how A paternal, a father figure contributes in it? I believe yes, it is. What is the role of paternal in the development of a child? My analysis or may be the correlation I try to make here may seem absurd to some, may seem wannabe to others and to some few, I may also seem a little creative and a little intelligent. I cater to none of these people, I cater to my needs of writing and writing about Politics and Psychoanalysis and their interface.  

Father's role and mother's role towards the development of the child are quite different. Mother's role in the beginning years, are more of nourishment. While Father's role is more intricate. There are four roles of a Father in the Psycho-sexual development of the child, Namely, 

First, The castrating influence. The influence sets ultimately some generational and incestual boundaries in the mind of Child. Now, recall, what was the role of Gandhi when, in his numerous speeches, he wants to set a boundary between Ethnic nationalism, communalism and a more civic kind of nationalism based on healthy democratic ideals? Is not it the same? There must be some boundaries regarding a concept when the concept is taking shape in the psyche of an individual or a collective. Sexuality and notion of affection, as it is differentiated in the minds of a child by the paternal, is to create an awareness that not all affections should be considered sexual, and not all sexual desires should be acceptable. Similarly, Gandhi's intervention to the India's collective psyche is to make them aware of the fact that not all national sentiments should be acceptable. Those national sentiments that are based on race-superiority should be rejected for good. Not all notions of a nation should be welcomed. The Ancient Hindu Rashtra narrative and projection of Muslims as outsiders, this notion is the generational boundary setting by Gandhi. One must love one's mother, here, in this case, Bharat Mata. But that love must not be a longing to crawl back to her womb, that is a kind of Revivalism that India's ethnic national sentiments and communal Hindu sentiments project. Gandhi discarded both of these sentiments. Let us summarize the correlations here. 

India as a nation: Child 

Gandhi: Father figure 

Ethnic Nationalism, Communalism: incestual sentiments

Political Revivalism: Generational sentiments (Crawling back to mother's womb) 

Civic nationalism: Healthy psycho-sexual development.

Second role of a father is also to provide an alternative attachment, other than the mother. Gandhi's role in the beginning of coming to Champaran and numerous other places and his consolidation of himself as the central figure of the freedom struggle reflects that role of Gandhi. This nation is still attached to Gandhi in many ways. Cleanliness and Gandhi's commitment to it, the nation aspires to it after 75 years of independence. Protests and Gandhian methods and sticking to them is, in my opinion, more than a political choice. It is like, walking in the shoes of the father and showing the father, "Look! Daddy, I have grown old now!" This is not a rebellious phase. This is in fact, a cooperative phase of a child's development and this corresponds to the Nation during the phase of the Gandhian Struggle. 

Third role of the Father, in the development of the child is cutting the metaphoric umbilical cord. To separate the Child from his/her mother. This is intended not to create a rift but to expand the child's horizon to a broader reality and to the concerns of the world. The imagery that comes to the mind is the mother's way to introduce the child with the world is through her fingers, "Look son! this is the world!", While the father's way is like the Lion King scene where the Lion takes his cub to the top of the mountain and shows him, "Look son! this is the world you have to rule!". Where do we find this in Gandhi? I say, we find this role of Gandhi in two different ways, one is religious, and one is social. On the religious side, Gandhi's engagement with other religions, his work in religious pluralism and an attempt to show to the Indian Psyche, especially to the Narcissist Hindu Psyche that, "Look son! there is a world out there with equal credibility as your mother's bosom." Another social dimension of Gandhi's role is to again awaken the Hindu society to look inwards into the neglected other of its own society, that is, towards the Harijans. Gandhi made Hindus, especially caste Hindus of the social identity that they need to form in order to be a healthy grown-up nation. It is like, A child, for the first time, looking in the mirror and not identifying that the leg he is seeing is his leg. The arm is his arm and to hurt his arm is to hurt himself. The expansion of Indian self has a social aid of Gandhi's constructive work in between Satyagrahas that he undertook.

Fourth role of the Father corresponds to the involvement of the Father's body with the child. Numerous playing sessions with the Child, hitting of the child on Father's palm and arm wrestling and such. Father's invite to hit him harder teaches the child aggression and the limits of aggression. Here, we see, Father' role to teach the child his capabilities, his assertiveness, and this fact that, you can assert your demands on the world aggressively and the world would not collapse. And another lesson, that like I suffered and sustained your attacks, one day, you will be able to sustain other people's blows on you. Gandhi's Satyagraha and Non-violence and numerous movements were like these teaching cum playing sessions for the nation-in-making. Satyagraha, an assertion to truth, non-violence, is actually a metaphoric aggression. Let me little bit expand on that. Non-violence as a mode of political struggle, how does it correspond to Aggression. It is aggression towards self. You, instead of attacking, receive attacks on your body and you keep on showing the right cheek, as if saying to the opponent, "I can sustain more, my dad trained me well, Let's see how hard can you hit". No wonder, when the revolutionary activist Ram prasad Bismil wrote this song, "Sarfaroshi ki tamanna ab hamare dil mein hai, Dekhna hai Zor kitna Baazu-e-Qaatil mein hai!" 

It is literally an invite to the opponent, to test his waters. Not to say, Gandhi meant this only when he preached non-violence, of course not. But this is how the correlation works. This is meant to be interpretative. 

Fifth Role of the father is to die. Now, if a father is absent, the child usually creates a symbolic father. But, in our nation's case, the father was present, at least in the initial years of its making. But He died in front of the nation, outside the Birla house. Usually when the father remains absent, the child creates an ideal image of the father in his mind sand and an idealization occurs in the mind of the child and it cannot be de-idealized in the minds of the child. The child in the sub-conscious, keeps this image that his father is all-knowing and all understanding. This nation's obsession with Gandhi is the same. The nation never saw Gandhi's drawback when he was alive. The nation never de-idealized Gandhi. So, the perceptions like, what would have Gandhi ji done in this situation? is more than a "What if" question, it is a pathological question for this country. The obsessions with Gandhian models of economy and Gandhian forms of protest and in Hinduism also, the right wing's push of Indigenous medicine and Selling Indian living as simple living is a fixation with Gandhi, which reflects the unresolved father issues the nation has with Gandhi. Gandhi's engagement with Village economy, Liquor abandonment, and so many other Gandhian ideals, still persist and the Nation and some state try to implement it and fail but they never de-idealize these methods. 

Gandhi's death in 1948 was an unfortunately an actual one and not a symbolic one as is usually considered healthy. Healthier would have been if Gandhi would have lived for another 20 years and would have tested the boundaries and limitations of his methods and self, and the country would have safely outgrown Gandhism and moved on to some real-world problems. Nehru's attempt to centralize an industrial and scientific economy was an attempt in this regard. But unfortunately, this country's psyche never fully outgrew Gandhi as the father figure as a result of which, Communal clashes as a rebellion child sentiment and revivalism and False father idealization still exists in the country. 

For a nation to fully outgrow his own maker is not completely possible. But to recognize the elements of your father and to be able to rectify through your own intellect, where Your father was wrong is what a healthy child is supposed to do. A healthy nation, similarly, has to one day try and test and accept or reject the father and Let the father finally die, symbolically of course, so that the Nation lives forever as a grown up. 

 

POETRY, HUMANITIES AND SCIENCE

We are all dealing with truths. Some are temporary truths; some are more permanent in nature. But eventually, everything is true. There is nothing as such as a lie in this universe. Just think about it, is not lie always in particular context? But we can always de-contextualize it and make it true for a different context? We can always analyze the statement in his own assertion, and we find there is some grain of truth in it. 

Poetry, Humanities and Science are three different kinds of truth I have encountered in my life. Science is mostly considered as universal truth, something which is more of a permanent kind of truth. It is reproducible, falsifiable and so on. But even this universality has a backdrop of assumptions and epistemic terminology which is very situational and circumstantial. For example: We assume now a days that Newton discovered Gravitational force. Gravity was there before Newton gave it that name. But think about it, isn't defining Gravity as a force was purely Newton's choice, he could have interpreted it quite differently and that would have decided the fate of subsequential mechanics. For example, if something falls on something, today our understanding about it is there must be something pulling it. Contact or non-contact, without force, it is not possible to pull or push something. It is common sense today. But, in Newton's time, any other model to explain the phenomena would have easily been accepted. Now, we are coming to what I wanted to convey. It is the mathematical model that we are describing and not the actual universe. How are they different? They are not very different. The actual system in sciences is often replaced by a similarly functioning model which allows us to do experiments and theoretical work on it. It is worthwhile to note, what makes a scientist choose a particular model depends solely on the kind of variables and terminologies he is dealing with. Now, is the picture correct?

Describing nature = Describing a model = Choice of model = Terms that we define to describe the system = Choice of the terms and quantities = discretion of the scientist or may be an intuition about the phenomena. 

Isn't it interesting? The so called objective scientific method conceals from the beginning that we have chosen a particular epistemology to describe it and not some other way. So, if someday, someone like Albert Einstein, decides to change this epistemology by considering a space time continuum and gravity as the curvature of space time, it is not really a big change. It is the change in the choice of mathematical model or rather the epistemology to describe the system. When we look at science like this, we find that there is a scope of interpretation in science as well. But, to make it application friendly, now a days, Scientists run from interpreting stuff. There is always a risk of looking like a Charlatan.

How is it different from Humanities where we do the same thing, but just we use different opinionated lenses to describe the human societies. In my opinion, nothing. I see both as same. In fact, here I align myself more towards the post-modernists. I think the epistemology of humans employed by them are mostly the same. And it is really unknown whether we actually know anything at all. All that can be said is that the models and descriptions work in some situations, so we say they are correct and in some other situations, they fail, so we say, they are incorrect.
Our notions of truth and false is applicability based. Whether there can be a system of epistemology where we can actually know the nature and human systems remains an unknowable and hence often discarded by Modern and post-modern scientists. 

In my opinion, if we look at Science, it is truth which can be replicated throughout its domain in different parts, and it still holds true. This is an amazement really that in a black hole, where almost all laws break down, Second Law of thermodynamics works. Humanities' claim is more of contextual. It does not and in my opinion should not claim universality. Although there has been an obsession of universalizing by Eurocentric thinkers in the past but now a days, we are more and more thinking about provincializing.  Humanities is a different kind of truth. It is contextualized in space and time. Sometimes it replicates but changes form and definitions. Sometimes it changes altogether. Sometimes the epistemology is widened so much that some questions become redundant. Like: What is a woman? is no longer a question that can be asked in Humanities. All I can say, is a historical progression of this idea. To say, what do you feel about it, may be is in spirit of humanities, but it is not really humanities. 

To say that these two branches were once part of a big tree called Philosophy seems such an absurd thing. One branch hardened like a rock and has assumed the responsibility of running the whole world today, while the other has been limited to understanding human societies and finds application in limited areas. But, epistemologically speaking, they are almost the same. 

Where does Poetry fits in all this? A contextual truth: Humanities, A so called universal truth: Science. What is poetry? Poetry is truth of the moment. Poetry assumes no context. Poetry assumes no time and no space and hence no claim to universality. But it does not affect the profoundness of the truth. It remains the bold and defiant truth that all truths usually are. 

So, Poetry: Momentary truth, Humanities: contextual truth, Science: "Universal truth" 

if someone says, "I love you!", it can be analyzed through three different lenses. For humanities perspective, this will require a context, a background, who said this, what is his social background, which economic class, what kind of privileges, and then a categorization follows that for example, this is a bourgeois love. For Humanities, Love and Elections might be similar phenomena. A scientific perspective will be more mechanical and crasser. Some chemical outflows and so on. For Science, Masturbation and love might be similar concepts. But Poetic perspective will say, "Fuck context, or time or assumptions", the truth of the moment is, "I love you", that's all. Nobody cares about the future, nobody cares about the past, it is here and now. "I love you". The brilliance of truth has nothing to do with context and universalization. Such is the magnitude of poetry. 

Where do I find myself? Over the years, I have shifted to many directions at the same time. From a rigid stance towards modernity and scientific revolution to more mellow and towards poetry and towards, society and humanities and then back to reason, I have been more than ambivalent to all these disciplines. 

What is truer? I don't know. But if you understand that it matters less and less since, an obsession to find the truth might be an escape to experience different kinds of truths and being ambivalent about it, then you may think not so much about closure, but about co-existing and being comfortable with all kinds of possibilities. Lies, what are they really? These are human constructs based on applicability of statements with respect to curated situations. All in all, I stand by my statements, everything has truth. something or the other, poetic, humanistic, or scientific. It is us, who decide to categorize. I can live without closure about truth, can you? And after all, I think, the obsession to be able to explain everything is but a disorder and a disease. Let it be!

Over the years, Of the debate of Weinberg vs Anderson, I have shifted to Anderson. More is different. It means, as we search more, we will find more varied phenomena in the universe. There need not be a universal theory. Let it be, keep on searching but be ok with secrets and inabilities to find and understand the truth. Someday, I will emphasize on upon what was the debate. Just mentioned here so that I do not forget. Let it be!

A LETTER TO MY FUTURE SELF

"Invent yourself, and then, Re-invent yourself, 

Don't Swim in the same slough, 

Invent yourself and then, re-invent yourself, 

Change your shape and size so often, 

that they may not categorize you!

Invent yourself and then, Re-invent yourself"

~ Charles Bukowski  

Dear Vibhat, 

If you are reading this in future, it means you already know what has happened with you and the situation might again seem to be unbearable, I want you to read this. You might remember when something like this happened with you when you were preparing for Civil services exam also. And you tried talking to your friends about this. Have you noticed lately that all your friends, most of them are struggling in their professional lives and hence grown out to be passive aggressive and rude. You talked to Kinshuk last night and he was frustrated as hell. You talk to your childhood friends (Abhishek and Nitesh) on weekends, and you find them either repressing their frustration or just being defensive about their life choices. I wonder why these people do not see this simple fact that all attempts to have a good career is eventually an attempt to have a good life, a good life can simply be available if you smile, do not take yourself too seriously, assume that you might have made mistakes and move on. I have seen my friends grow bitter and bitter. All they have seem like complaints about the world and how it is like a shithole. I have some other friends that I made in my former workplace. Sidhant and Deep are those people, who I do not find at least expressing their frustration. There is a certain kind of awareness that only working people have, the awareness that frustration is a temporary reality, so the expression of every small frustration might mean amplifying it. Also doing good professionally makes you calmer. Then, I have my friend Rustam. Rustam seems to be in best of his time. He still is trying to find a job. But He seems pretty happy. Rustam is having a pretty good personal life. Reminds you of Freud's declaration, "How bold one gets when one is sure of getting love!" But, Rustam has always been a cheerful guy. He has seen bad times. He has seen times when for 2-3 years, at home preparing for NEET and that he could not qualify. It is noteworthy to say how he passed those times and still kept a cheerful perspective about life. 

Vibhat, I know you often face a crisis of meaning in your daily life. More often after you have left the well-trodden path of your long-cherished dream of being a Scientist and now that you wish to be Civil servant or may be an academician. But one thing I might remind you. How, when you see people whining and complaining about life, you get reminded of people of your family. You never idealized your own father, your own mother and not even your own Grandfather. You saw them only complain about life and you do not like it. Somehow you know that their complains are not legit. If an upper caste of this country complains about not having enough opportunities, if a man in this country complains about gender bias at workplace, how legit can this complain be. You always saw who real victims of this economy are. All this I am telling you to remind you that this is the source of a well-profound meaning for you, Vibhat. Never become a Whinner about life, never complain about how hard your life has been. Always try to find a cheerful aspect of it. Not because it is necessary, but because there always is a silver lining. It is just, we are blinded by our complain bias, that we refuse to see it. However hard life may seem, there is always a way. Always remember, you have to become something you can look and smile about and feel, yes this was a life worth living. It could be teaching a bunch of village children, to running a multi-national company, to administering a state to even doing research in academics. Whatever you do, always remember, smiling back is so important. Happiness should not be an outcome; it should be an input to life. 

Also, recall, your dream regarding future generations, recall how you broadened the much-cherished dreams of economic empowerment to intellectual growth. Most people, especially of your age, might only wish that their future must be an economic improvement over their past. Notice, how you had linked economic improvement to intellectual improvement. and how intellectual improvement is the goal every educated man should have. Remember you came from a highly regressive patriarchal family, a highly casteist, a highly bigoted, a highly communal family. Only good thing you ever found in your family, was your laborious and hardworking grandfather, who had books of all kinds in his mini shelf. Recall how you read all his books till you aged 14. It is nothing but sort of a miracle. You quickly stopped idealizing people who children your age idealize may be all of their lives. Soon, your ideals became some warriors of social justice, Dr. Ambedkar, to Gandhi, to Bhagat Singh, to Einstein. You understood how as a parent, it is good to give your children an economically better life, but it is even more essential to give them an intellectually stimulating and free environment to expand their minds out of these parochial visions of society, like Patriarchy, Casteism etc. Your friends, even though, they can think all this, care less and less about this because, parochial vision prevails in them. They do not see life as you through your value system. They did not have a grandfather who cherished knowledge this much in their house.  One of your friends, Nitesh, had a teacher dad, who could only transfer in him a zeal to crack government exams and carry responsibilities of his household. Not to be biased, it is also true that you were slightly better than him in economic condition, you had no such responsibilities. But, also, see, Responsibility is a tricky thing. Nobody in middle class puts it on you. You usually take it on your head and run with it. Nobody in the middle-class household questions their child, why are you running with your head filled with Family trauma. It is true, every household has a family trauma. You had a broken family with both parents with severe mental issues, Nitesh's family trauma is probably economic insufficiency, Abhishek's is the same. But I think what separates you from them, is that you never ran with the family trauma. You brother sure did once, but you did not. You understood that you have a self-independent of your family. However, attached one is from his family; one should always cherish an independence from the family if he wishes to cherish freedom and happiness. You did and that's why I am so proud of you. 

At last, I only want to say, never believe someone who tells you that you were not special. You outgrew your historical horizon as Gadamer would have put it. Nobody, I repeat, nobody among your peers were able to do it so extensively. Ask yourself, do any of your friends have the courage to outgrow their male ego and cry in front of their friends? They might say, this is not in their nature. But that is the fucking point. We have to fight the regressive aspects of our own self to become better versions of ourselves. You ex-girlfriend, whom you loved so dearly, ask your heart. Did she ever understand you? if she would have, she would have learnt a lot from you. She remained fixated to her older self even after 5 years of duration. In turn, you learnt a lot from her. You learnt cheerfulness, you learnt bubbliness. In fact, she lost it in her quest to become richer. You learnt it in your quest to understand life better. 

Always remember Vibhat, the key to understanding is to assume the lowest position in life. Nobody learnt anything new being superior to others. And The key to being superior is always to lend a helping hand to people who feel inferior to you. Always, take knowledge assuming you are nothing, then give assuming you are everything. 

Your life is your life Vibhat, never listen to people if they wish to impart some worldly wisdom in your head. Recall how you were against wisdom from Day one. This differentiates again you and Nitesh. All he has collected from reading philosophy is a bunch of quotes. He never understood the essence of it all. The essence of reading anything is just to acquaint yourself with thoughts and then become freshly a child. A child, who can think and not just recall who said what. 

Now, the 10 promises I want from you: 

1. Promise me Vibhat, even in your most dull and most successful days, you will never become passive aggressive, arrogant and non-reflective of life. 

2. Promise me Vibhat, you will not become like your friends, your family or for that matter like anyone. You have to invent new avenues, new perspective of looking at life. 

3. You will work for a good life. But a good life is not just material wealth, but also intellectual wealth. Your children, if any, should have an intellectually free environment to grow and not the suffocating one you grew in. 

4. Promise me Vibhat, whatever you end up doing Vibhat, you will do it like worshipping some god. Never believe people like Javed Akhtar, who say work humiliates you. It does not. You humiliate yourself. Since, you have a habit of seeing yourself at a particular standard of working and since you are a beginner to a field, you cannot so you think you are a loser. You know these people cannot see what you see. A child should not feel a loser if he could not walk in initial years of his life. Work is worship.

5. Promise me Vibhat, you will remain an idealist. All you have is your honesty. You were the one who accepted your fault in second standard when your own friend Abhishek helped you by saying you did not do a particular thing. Recall, how you were beaten with one blow of stick, while rest of them were given two blows. But you were happier than people who suffered not even one blow. Your happiness standards were always better than others Vibhat. Remain honest, please. Remain an idealist. 

6. Promise me Vibhat, you will love people in your life with utmost sincerity. I know, your experience with Love has not been good. But believe me, never ever be bitter towards love. God is love. Love encompasses the Universe like anything. If someone broke your heart, it is the Universe's love in disguise. Follow your duties. Someone will someday love you so much that you will not be able to comprehend. Love Love and Love existence. 

7. Promise me Vibhat, people who wish to learn from you, you will not refuse to help. 

8. Promise me Vibhat, you will never pretend something you are not. 

9. Promise me Vibhat, you will not fixate with anything for long. 

10. Promise me Vibhat, that we both will kiss death with the same wide smile and laughter that is our signature. 

And I promise you, everyone will remember a smiling, cheerful Vibhat. He will not whine about life. 

Hoping for a reply not soon enough :) 

Yours past, 

Vibhat, 16th October 2024

WHY I CONSIDER MYSELF A DHARMIC AMBIVALENT?

The debate of ontology and existence is not new. Neither is the debate of belief and faith. Nor this has grown old whether there is a God or not. And the analogous debate in the 20th century about meaning of existence. All these debates and discussions revolve around a central theme, "Is there a God at all?" This question encompasses all the earlier and later questions regarding this. God, regardless of its form, human or otherwise, if exists, confers meaning. 

If we consider blind faith of the medieval dark ages of Europe as madness of civilization, what will you call a reverse fanaticism about non-existence of God through reason in the age of western modernity. The debate really now, in current age, is not really whether the nature of existence has a creator or not. The debate today, if any, is whether such a debate can be constructed, that is, such an ontology around metaphysics, is it even possible? Since Kant's transcendentalism, the reasoning regarding God has become impossible. You can no longer ask questions like, "Is there a God?" The question appropriate in this direction would be, "Is there a God knowable through reason?" To which Kant says, NO. 

My contestation is not with either rationalists or empiricists. My contestation is the following. I do not want to create a binary between yes or no, or Faith or belief as the modern rational atheists like Dawkins would like to do. My binary is between conformity and ambivalence. 

In other words, I am not at all asking if God exists, or is reason enough or do we need God? My concern here is, can we live without the need of a closure regarding this question? Modern Atheism tries to give closure to man through the answer, "There is no God!" Religious people would like to believe there is and hence get a closure to this question. My concern is, since the question itself encompasses all of us and beyond, numerous galaxies and an ever-expanding universe, do you not think this is going to be an ever-encompassing question with no possible conformity or closure available. In this regard, I would like to be Ambivalent. Does it really matter to stick to an opinion at all? Yes, there is God, no, there is not! Let me tell you how it helps man to be in either of the two sides. Man is a weird creature. Over centuries, He accumulated a brain power and processing ability that no other species had in the whole history of life on earth. But This ability leads to a very contradictory position to man. Man cannot believe that now he is so intelligent that he can ask questions so great that he himself cannot either comprehend or solve. Man's dilemma is the same as the Dilemma of God. What to do with my own creation? My own question? Is there a God? God is asking simultaneously, "Why is there a man at the first place?", Why did he create? no answers available either to him or to the man. The Pre-Socratic Philosopher Protagoras famously said, "I am the secret of man, And Man is my secret!".

Now, another dimension to this question. This time, I like to create a binary of "is" and "should be". I think most people today know there is no meaning to life. Most people understand there is no God. There are no more religious people left on this planet. Now, you might ask, then who are these people ringing bells in Temples, who are these people offering Namaz on Jaa-Namaz at the Mosque? Who are people who lit candles in church? I claim, these are wanna be religious people. I will expand on this. 

There can be three kinds of religious people to my experience. One, who beliefs there is a God. He has a faith. He does not care about evidence. He has nothing to do with reason. Second, one who has seen God. Unfortunately, I know some people who claim to have seem God. Mysterious enough, huh? Yes, That's India for you. And Last, the majority of the people today on Earth. People who are well read. They have a logical intuition that no such a thing like a God can exist. It is illogical. But they want God to exist. They want a meaning of life. They want that there should be a God, but unfortunately, they know that there is not. 

"Ye Koi Achi Khabar Nhi ki Khuda Nhi!"

~ Jaun Elia  

Or, Jaun Elia, the famous Urdu poet, encaptures this as This is no good news, that there is no God.  Since, most people in the debate are on the "should be" side, naturally, you see a different kind of religiosity today on Earth. Cutting across all religions, you see wanna be Hindus, Wanna be Christians, Wanna be Muslims. 

Where am I on this debate? I am no exception to this debate. I am also, a "should be" person. A person who wishes that there should be a noble and kind God, a creator. Unfortunately, I know, there is zero to no possibility of that. 

However, there is something I have learnt with my upbringing in a highly Dharmic Hindu Family. There is a long and wide and all-encompassing harmony in this universe. Sometimes this harmony manifests itself in ways in which humans face destruction at mass level or even individually, I do know, that nature in its nature itself, is value neutral and hence a certain kind of kindness it has. And Who is kinder than the person who is value neutral? 

That is Dharma. To be able to comprehend the fact that although sometimes it goes contrary to your interests, there is a harmony in this universe. A universal law all beings and non-beings follow, the law called Dharma. That is why I consider myself a Dharmic. Not a Hindu, not a Muslim or any other religious identity. I believe in universal harmony. I have love for this existence, however nasty, cruel or sometimes malevolent it seems. I express my love through Bhajans, through Qawwali, through meditation, through Sanskrit Hymns, through verses of the Bible. I think, all religions, at least their founders, were like me. They loved existence in its entirety. I juxtapose myself to all Nihilists, all existentialists, who claim no meaning. I claim meaning. I mean meaning. 

I remain an Atheist. or rather, an ambivalent attitude towards it. Somewhat like Buddha. Buddha said, behave as if there is no God, but even if there is, your behavior should not be different. This indifference to God, is actually his appreciation. His creations should not be biased towards him. We should treat the creations and the creator alike. And who knows, who is the creator and who is the creator. As Protagoras said, "Man is my secret and I am man's". 

How my ambivalence is different from Agnosticism. My ambivalence is not "I don't know!" It is, "I don't know, I don't want to know since I already love this existence, so, it doesn't matter!" 

At last, I depart quoting Iqbal, the famous poet of this sub-continent last century, 

"Accha hai Dil ke saath rahe paasbaan-e-Aql, 

Lekin Kabhi Kabhi isey Tanha bhi Chhor de!" 

Which means, "Yes, it is indeed important to have reason with emotions, but sometimes let not reason intervene in emotions". 

Let not your love for this whole existence get interrupted by reason. 

SELF-IMPOSED RITUALS ARE FREEDOM

The political science perspective of freedom and liberty is to assume absolute autonomy within Individuals and to provide it with basic civil liberties within the paradigm of state. It basically gives the individual full authority to decide what is best for him and then act upon it. But a philosophically engaging question to ask would be how one can know what is good for oneself? 

One answer to this is blind Hedonism. Immediate gratification. But is it always the good choice is obviously a debatable question. Another answer to this is delayed gratification, The path of moralism. But, to what extent one should delay one's gratification is a debate again. Finally, a highly spiritual answer would be what Shrimad Bhagvat Geeta is to not think about what is good for yourself at all. Rather to engage oneself in an action which is your only right. The action to be guided by a collective consciousness called Dharma, which decides what is moral in a particular situation. 

A lot of questions and answers regarding freedom but there should be a starting assumption that can be used as a starting point. Let us assume that Life as it is, and its quality, is to be valued and the more it is valued, the better it is for an individual. 

What makes a life better quality-wise? Let us take physical health and mental health to be the paradigm of quality of life. A sound physical health and a sound physical health is the parameter of good life. Then, Actions that one should do is exercise and meditate perhaps. Notice, how the language shifted from "can do" to "should do". And that is the subject of philosophy.

There are two aspects of Freedom. There is absolute decision making about life by individual and then there is contingency. Contingency is when there is no option available to you and you have to ask in a particular way. The basic assertion I am doing may be, we are never ever fully free when we have options to choose from and then we choose something. Because Choice is never a choice independent in thin air. One's choice is informed by one's biases, one's socio-economic conditions, one's experiences and one's material reality. So, it seems really that you are choosing to sleep till late, but it is not really you but your social conditioning. 

Then What is Freedom really? If even in the most free-looking decisions, you are bound to choose the social conditioning, when we can say that we have made a truly free choice. In my opinion, A truly free choice is so true that there is no choice involved. It is really the contingent option, that makes us free. It is the ultimate discipline of not choosing at all and opting for something which is an absolute necessity is what makes us free. 

In other words, Freedom of choice is really valuable when it is freedom from choice. Freedom is truly a bondage and the desire to be free is really in itself a bondage. The truly free individuals act upon a discipline. To call it a discipline might seem too harsh. It is really ritualism. True freedom is following a self-imposed ritual. It can range from having a small cup of coffee for your head early in the morning, to some more rigorous rituals like reading to training or anything else. True freedom is not anarchy, True freedom is actually a state like feature with highly flexible nature of state. Anarchy is where all freedoms are suspended by virtue of its own internal contradiction of the concept of freedom. 

Freedom has an internal contradiction that absolutely free choice does not exist. Then, only contingency or self-discipline can take the place of Freedom. Ritualism is freedom. The rituals should be self-imposed, variable in time and space and they should respect the basic tenets of quality of life, that is physical and mental health.