Yes, love doesn’t come with a price tag and yet you end up paying a heavy price for it. (If this were my facebook update, by now, a million faceless people would ‘unlike’ this and post a comment regretting my opinion although they ought to know an opinion is never regretted, especially by someone who doesn’t own it!) It’s rather intriguing to hear a lot about this bit of life from those who haven’t seen life at all. They say (funny that ‘they’ refers to teenagers nowadays unlike a few years back when ‘they’ referred to our ancestors or elders), Life has no meaning without love, which is absolutely true.
A skewed approach to an argument such as this one propagates a notion, usually philosophical. Let’s say A tells B, after he was dismally defeated by C in a game of table tennis, “Dude, he is from Pluto. He plays like he owns the game. Don’t ever try defeating him. You just can’t!” It seems pretty cogent an argument for those who are inexperienced in the field of Radical Thinking. (It’s a phenomenal concept not followed by many, especially those who fall prey to emotions at every point in life.)So, B never tries a game against C because he is unbeatable. (Who said he is unbeatable doesn’t count anymore, although that is the most important bit). A simple logic that says A and B are different entities and that they differ by leaps and bounds and that everything is circumstantial is something that doesn’t usually pop up in the head when another head (here, A’s) tries to force something into yours(here B’s)through a back gate.
So, everything is circumstantial and so is love. If it works for one, it does not become a universal truth. While there are many who propagate the ‘all-encompassing power’ that love beholds, there are others who feel it IS indeed, a waste of precious time. (Truly, for those who know it’s a waste of precious time and still are into it, it probably is a ‘precious waste of time’.) To counter that, the former group argues relentlessly for the might of love citing a number of examples where it worked like magic. In defense, the latter cites an equal number of examples where it was an evil force that took over the lives of innocent ones for a short period.
Nevertheless, the fundamental problem that refuses to be acknowledged by either of the parties is the unrecognizable ambiguity between intimacy and love. The ambiguity has evolved over only the past few generations. This is precisely the age when adolescence is the most dreaded phase of life when drastic incidents could swallow a thousand lives at once. The gravity of this issue is hardly felt when the argument stays afloat, such as the one above. It shouldn’t be whether love is good or love is bad. It should start from a level that rests far far below. The argument begins with whether it IS love or not. The time has come for it to sink in and dig deeper.
The fundamentalism of this very question will reduce the size of the two arguing parties, with a majority of them choosing to leave the argument owing to the lack of knowledge. Some of them might choose to switch sides after a lot of deliberation. Some of them might leave thinking it’s a waste of time. (This is probably the mentality of many who refrain even from taking a side.) But, the very point of this is to make society aware of the lives of a huge portion of the youth at stake because of a notion called love that has meaning, understood only and strictly by a few (By few, I mean very very few).
To dig and dig till we get there is the task in hand, following which we could have a thousand debates on why, how and when. To know it fully and from the right sources (The Bhagavad Gita, for instance) is crucial before an argument is put on the table.
I could go on and on because I’m appalled at the rate of suicide attempts, scandals and the sheer hopelessness of youth today and I’m concerned deeply for every soul that is a part of this struggle that is a mere consequence of an ambiguity and that is totally uncalled for. Nevertheless, it is time to embrace radical thinking for a while now to put our heads back in place before digging deeper. Bringing two lives together is blissful, only if it doesn’t take anyone else’s away, both literally and figuratively..
A skewed approach to an argument such as this one propagates a notion, usually philosophical. Let’s say A tells B, after he was dismally defeated by C in a game of table tennis, “Dude, he is from Pluto. He plays like he owns the game. Don’t ever try defeating him. You just can’t!” It seems pretty cogent an argument for those who are inexperienced in the field of Radical Thinking. (It’s a phenomenal concept not followed by many, especially those who fall prey to emotions at every point in life.)So, B never tries a game against C because he is unbeatable. (Who said he is unbeatable doesn’t count anymore, although that is the most important bit). A simple logic that says A and B are different entities and that they differ by leaps and bounds and that everything is circumstantial is something that doesn’t usually pop up in the head when another head (here, A’s) tries to force something into yours(here B’s)through a back gate.
So, everything is circumstantial and so is love. If it works for one, it does not become a universal truth. While there are many who propagate the ‘all-encompassing power’ that love beholds, there are others who feel it IS indeed, a waste of precious time. (Truly, for those who know it’s a waste of precious time and still are into it, it probably is a ‘precious waste of time’.) To counter that, the former group argues relentlessly for the might of love citing a number of examples where it worked like magic. In defense, the latter cites an equal number of examples where it was an evil force that took over the lives of innocent ones for a short period.
Nevertheless, the fundamental problem that refuses to be acknowledged by either of the parties is the unrecognizable ambiguity between intimacy and love. The ambiguity has evolved over only the past few generations. This is precisely the age when adolescence is the most dreaded phase of life when drastic incidents could swallow a thousand lives at once. The gravity of this issue is hardly felt when the argument stays afloat, such as the one above. It shouldn’t be whether love is good or love is bad. It should start from a level that rests far far below. The argument begins with whether it IS love or not. The time has come for it to sink in and dig deeper.
The fundamentalism of this very question will reduce the size of the two arguing parties, with a majority of them choosing to leave the argument owing to the lack of knowledge. Some of them might choose to switch sides after a lot of deliberation. Some of them might leave thinking it’s a waste of time. (This is probably the mentality of many who refrain even from taking a side.) But, the very point of this is to make society aware of the lives of a huge portion of the youth at stake because of a notion called love that has meaning, understood only and strictly by a few (By few, I mean very very few).
To dig and dig till we get there is the task in hand, following which we could have a thousand debates on why, how and when. To know it fully and from the right sources (The Bhagavad Gita, for instance) is crucial before an argument is put on the table.
I could go on and on because I’m appalled at the rate of suicide attempts, scandals and the sheer hopelessness of youth today and I’m concerned deeply for every soul that is a part of this struggle that is a mere consequence of an ambiguity and that is totally uncalled for. Nevertheless, it is time to embrace radical thinking for a while now to put our heads back in place before digging deeper. Bringing two lives together is blissful, only if it doesn’t take anyone else’s away, both literally and figuratively..
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
very practical approach and true a large extent. i totally agree!!
"It shouldn’t be whether love is good or love is bad. It should start from a level that rests far far below. The argument begins with whether it IS love or not. The time has come for it to sink in and dig deeper." - Well said Janani. Love has lost its true meaning in todays world. Or I would say that it has been redefined. Terms like intimacy, infatuation etc. are being confused with love. Today's youth is quite hasty in deciding what is true love and what is not and without even sensibly thinking for once, they decide to take a major step in life. Choosing a life partner is not easy. It should not be done on mere basis of looks, sweet talks, and on tenuous bonds of commitment without proper thought. Finding our alter ego takes time and it requires us to be patient. And once we have found our soul, there will be an exchange of positive energies between two people and the person who loves us will not only love us but will also love our imperfections. If we feel this energy, then we have found our true love because our soul(life partner) is the one who can never hurt or leave us.
Yup, that's absolutely true. I always believe that everything has a time and a place. The Western thought and culture has become so widespread nowadays that one fine day, mankind will witness a great fall. The sanctity of love and marriage has almost vanished and words like 'trust', 'bonding', 'compatibility' etc are being used for the most random relationships that usually occur by chance.
Anyway, as I said, I could go on and on but, one, there wouldn't be many who'd agree to this and two, my fingers ache. :D
Post a Comment