“Please ask the
Government to firstly change the criteria, and then try to pressurize me.... You wouldn't even need to pressurise me... I just follow
the criteria prescribed, whether I personally subscribe to it or
not... I am doing what I am paid to do, nothing less,... and yet
something more, only when it does not contravene the 'theme' of
rules/criteria, and any adverse consequence, if at all is going to
accrue, should belong only-to-me!”
I was a witness to this
emphatic statement conveyed over a phone, with a quite assertive
manner by a person holding powers of sanctioning an educational loan,
but was avoiding 'yielding to political pressure, applied through
higher officials in the hierarchy...!
It was my turn to examine,
within myself, whether my admiration for such bold statement (the
consequences are quite imaginable!), whether my admiration was due to
my 'affinity for the person?' (he is a very good friend of mine!..
when it is a 'friend' doing anything, we are inclined to say 'okay'
to it!)... whether it was due to his uprighteousness? (Oh! It is
too comprehensive a term to verify the application-part and
cross-check!... whether it was his clarity about what was expected
of him? The clarity envisages a thorough knowledge about the actions
needed to be done in a situation, while maintaining coherence with
the 'preamble' (purpose), of what is expected out of such prescribed
routine! Yes... this seems easier to follow... and that is where I
found a little-more-clarity about the two terms, 'deserving and
eligible'!!! When decision-making is already based on fuzzy-logic,
the existing clarity-even, between such-two-similar-looking-terms
would evaporate, for a while! Emotions are unavailable to logic...
If we try to help an emotion, through our emotion potential,
(typically that 'counselling'), are we able to decide the 'criteria'
of 'eligibility and deserving' distinctly-enough to be able to apply
'our-selves' (that is what emotional help means, the whole of our
being, applied, unreservedly!), apply ourselves a bit sensibly,
reasonably, etc?... Often a woman would say to a male 'Please leave
me alone for a while...' (Mujhe kuch daer ke liye akela chor deejiye
Kripaya), implying... 'you fool, you are neither capable of knowing
the parameters of 'eligibility and deserving', nor are you able to
assess your own levels of the potential to extend that
emotional-support!
At times, the criteria of
'eligibility' steps over the deserving-parameters ... A Red Cross
volunteer chooses to save the life of an enemy soldier who is
fatally/vitally hit/injured, even if the volunteer belongs to the
other side of the border... If healthy, that soldier deserves to be
shot down (parameters are exclusive here!)... If that person is a
non-combat-civilian of other side of the border (say a woman, child,
or an aged person), the deserving parameter insulates them from the
injury-sought-to-be inflicted by a 'deserves to be shot-down'
parameter, where as, the same non-combatant has to be restrained from
playing a spy-role, etc...
When I was a kid, I was
amused to find this 'clarity' in the elders, but only while they deal
with kids... They would say 'This adult is wrong, and deserves to be
admonished... but you are not 'eligible' to speak against
him/her!!!' (it leaves the kid 'wondering' about these strange rules
of 'elders'!!!)... On the other hand, if we are inclined to look at
it on a 'no-risk' basis, the epic stories provide the scope... In
the great epic war of Mahabharat... Drona Versus 5 Pandavas, ... a
few scenes of provoking each other, provides ample scope to debate
when both the sides mix-up the eligibility+deserving criteria...
Drona hopes to prevent the Pandavas from chasing Jayadrata or so, to
slay him before 'sunset' ... using 'verbal gimmicks' and teases the
Pandavas, saying 'I am your enemy here, fight me first'... While the
4 out of 5 Pandavas quote a different criteria 'You are our Guru
first'... and evade him, Bhima merely says, “So-be-it” and
attacks Drona... (who is/are.... right/and/or/wrong/etc... and why
are they so.. is a matter of choice for those who are indulging in
only a 'reading-for-pastime' criteria.. where as ... it is a matter
of deeper perception for those interested in imbibing
spiritual-concepts!
What do we do with
ourselves, when we try to use up the resources? Do we deserve?...
Are we eligible?... Does the inheritance-parameters, or 'the'...
earned-parameters.. by social standards, at once going to 'scale-up'
our eligibility and deserving parameters way beyond the 'nature's
rules?'... We seldom attempt to probe into these aspects, and
then... over a period of time, the decision-making-process preempts
even the introspection, and the resultant response-process 'seems'
natural and intuitive even! What seems 'natural' obviates the need
for any re-look... But when somebody attempts a walk on that
pathless path, the spiritual one, ... all these
'hitherto-neglected-parameters' become heavily operational, and
all-at-once... and then there is a hectic confusion about many
crucial aspects ... like ... 'how to choose a Guru?'... why does
that Guru not choose me?.... why am I not able to 'experience'
so-and-so thing despite years of intense practices?... etc...
At 'normal-life-levels'...
we pamper the body undeservedly ending up as couch-potatoes, while
the alertness and attentiveness of the mind pays the price, in terms
of 'eligibility' for deeper perception and passes on the costs to the
body itself, over a period of time, rending it 'eligible' for a
medical care on a 'routine-basis'!!! Hey! Now, even I am confused
here... mixing commercial aspects into non-commercial self-items!
Fortunate are those, I
would say.... who are able to check the parameters itself, of every
attempt-even, to define-afresh, the need itself, to apply the
concepts of 'deserving and eligible' with a spiritual sense too,
while dealing with worldly matters also... The side benefit perhaps
might be that humility, or a sense-of-humility, creeps in through
back door, and gets stuck on to their forehead, visible only to
others, and therefore the 'subtle eligibility criteria' transcends
the 'not-yet-deserving' proviso under the karmic baggage selected out
of 'sanchita' godown... etc... (this 'karmic' and 'sanchita' are
fuzzy terms, used indicatively ... for mere reference purposes, to
pave a way, towards understanding the rules of absolute-world, via
empirical experiences, till this bridge/ladder becomes redundant!)
Undeservedly yours,
psn (18th August, 2014)
No comments:
Post a Comment