Why Do You Want To Change Me? by Santosh Jha (books to read for 13 year olds .TXT) 📕

They said, “a man’s right to stretch his hands ends where the nose of other starts”. And we are always very sure that we have this right to stretch our hands as far as possible… but then, we are far too many and far too closely huddled in this overly over-populated world… and, far too linked in our individual destinies than we can feel comfortable of… such a nosey state of affair this! This needs to change, we all need to change… this culture, this worldview needs decisive correction… things need to change…!

**

Only Compassion Can Effect Changes

There are lot many things we all cannot definitively say with utmost conviction that they are the right ones. This is almost a classical position because, we all accept that wisdom and knowledge is no static entity. It is an evolutionary and dynamic thing and the consciousness of a human being is too negligibly and insignificantly small and immaterial to have a good grasp of this colossal dynamism.

Still, this acceptance and larger wisdom apart, it has to be accepted that almost everyone has this feeling at one time or another, or probably perpetually too that what he or she knows is the right thing. The reality remains that whichever approach or perspective we accept as the right one; we tend to believe and accept all those answers, which this accepted approach throws for us as the right one. The consciousness mechanism has been designed this way.

For example, a person who has faith and acceptance that religion and spirituality is the right approach for looking at the realism, he or she would tend to largely believe and accept that religion and spiritualism alone must have all true and right answers of all major or small questions of life and living. This is our mechanism and design.

Now, those believing and accepting that secular scientific knowledge of cosmic realism is the right one, shall feel the same way. ‘What is received as real is what is accepted as real’. There can be many approaches and perspectives for looking at the realism. There are different shades and colors of consciousness and different perspectives of realism that these shades lead humans to. Everyone sticks to its choices, which seems a conscious one but has a precarious mix of the subconscious mind positioning.

Somehow, as humanity now has a good measure of knowledge about working of human brain and the resultant consciousness, it is established that the brain is the real hero or culprit in making this happen. If human brain accepts a certain framework or point of reference for the validity and acceptance of a broad value-summation, it would unconsciously lead the human mind to accept all other smaller things under the same framework or point of reference.

This mind-mechanism leads to a human consciousness in an individual where if he or she accepts religion and faith as the broad framework, he or she would innately and subconsciously tend to see every other smaller issues, events, problems, life and living choices as something essentially as compatible to his or her religious framework.

The important point is, is it right? Well, this question again shall have to be processed by a mind, or a mindset, which has been colored and inclined to a particularly ‘preferred’ framework or point of reference. The answers would never be easy and singular.

There looks like two key questions in such a state where there is a conflict, dualism and pluralism of answers about one question. The first is:

* Can we say that it is always profitable in such a state not to be bogged down by a fixed or fixated singular mindset and allow equal or at least equitable importance to all possible viewpoints and frames of reference?

The second question is:

* Can we say that, it seems, different frameworks or points of reference may co-exist and prevail simultaneously still, particular issue, event, problem or choice may ideally be better handled by one single framework? Some troubles the faith can handle better and still other trouble may be exclusively assigned to medical science or the brain outlook?

If this is interpreted at mind or consciousness level, the problem can be better understood. The human brain mechanism has essentially been designed for ‘self’ and works instinctively for individual survival and excellence. It accepts even the collective and societal checks and balances in terms of self’s survival and excellence. That is why; its value-summation usually is individualistic.

The human brain has the innate mechanism to process all sensory inputs in the subjective iconic reference framework of individual’s personalized value system. That is why; human mind would usually prefer personal ideas to collective wisdom. To ensure that all humans have consciousness, which is conducive and inclined towards a peaceful and co-exiting collectivity, it looks right and desirable that the above two questions have an answer in affirmative.

It is observed that almost all societies, where tolerance and respect for plurality is high, it has invariably ensured very high individual freedom and level field for excellence of all. It is a very practical idea that an individual’s own freedom and individuality is best ensured where and when he or she is part of a strong and powerful collective believing in and practicing plurality. A strong collectivity is the best guarantee of liberalized individuality.

The other practical part, as we have been continuously talking about is the process of dualism of consciousness finally evolving into a non-dualistic consciousness. We all can start with one belief and then grow to assimilate all other beliefs and as everyone in the collectivity does so, there shall be an evolution where a singular and non-dualistic consciousness may evolve. In the past, human civilizations have done this.

If hydrogen and oxygen remain compartmentalized and egoistically exclusive to each other, there can never be water, the lifeline of humanity. The water has molecules of both but it is neither hydrogen nor oxygen. It is a singular and non-dualistic evolution of dualistic entities, which finally evolved to shed their dualistic consciousness to merge into one.

Let there be water, let there be non-dualistic mergers and union, let water flow everywhere so that humanity survives and thrives. Let dualistic and egoistic identities be compassionate and affectionate enough to rise above ‘preferred’ mindsets and ‘fixated’ framework of references, let there be only a non-dualistic consciousness for larger humanity.

This shall necessitate a major change in our mindsets and perspectives. We have huge challenges ahead of us. Our very survival is questioned. The world is full of personal as well as spatial conflicts and strife. These are primarily because of our egoistic and subjective perspectives about right and wrong. This need to change. A compassionate and non-egoistic mind, which affectionately accepts dualisms and pluralisms, allowing compassionate assimilation of even competing ideas so that there could be a gradual evolution of humanity’s one singular and non-dualistic global culture. This change in all of us need for our own survival. If we do not change, we are sure to face major troubles for our life-living wellness.

**

The Somethingness In Nothingness

We can say, there is nothing called ‘ignorance’! The word looks like, at best, an accusation by one for another. Somehow, tragically enough, people often use the word for one-upmanship against competing persons.

There may not be even a handful, who would accept this tag for themselves, even when almost every human being faces this label so many times in his or her life. Actually, more knowledgeable one accepts himself or herself, more ignorant he or she stands to be labeled. This is the way our cultural mind consciousness works!

Nothingness is never a reality as it seems, there is always a ‘somethingness’ called ‘knowledge’, tiny bit or colossal but always relative and subjective. In this subjectivity and relativity is the genesis of the accusation, called ‘ignorance’.

Often, ‘ignorance’ at one time presents itself as the ultimate ‘wisdom’ in a particular linearity of time and space for the same person. In addition, one’s wisdom invariably seems ‘ignorance’ for other. The objectivity of the realism apart, the subjectivity and relativity of situation and position makes it happen.

Sunset in one part of the world is sunrise for another in extreme other part of the globe, even when sun actually never rises or sets. Most of ‘realisms’ of life present knowledge this way in our popular culture. It is the convenient way to look at reality around us. Goodness of life is like the Sun, which never ever rises or sets but we in our subjective and relative mind consciousness accept this ‘virtual imagery’ of the goodness of Sun.

The wise and arrived also call it a cyclic realism. Relativity and subjectivism wraps in its warm embrace almost all realism, in one time or other. The trouble is; both sunrise and sunset are realisms at one particular frame of reference. This ‘superposition’ (ever-presence) of realisms is also an intricate but interesting realism. This however is tough for individuals to accept in normal walks of live.

So, can we say, there is never a ‘nothingness’, always a ‘somethingness’ and this something is always subjective and relative, enabling the engendering of the term ‘nothing’.

A something, or a knowledge is the ‘right’ and ‘best’ thing for an individual but at the same time, it is the source of accusation for other that it is ‘nothing’ and sheer ‘ignorance’. In absolute reality, even nothing is something and even ignorance is some knowledge. There is seldom a vacuum… it is not a natural state of things…!

There always is a truth; subjective and relative it may be. This is the energy, which creates and celebrates the ‘label’ of ‘false’. One’s subjective truth is other’s ‘false’; one’s subjective ‘good’ is other’s ‘bad’. Sunrise in USA is sunset in India but from the space, a person would say both are ‘ignorant’ as the two terms are only ‘virtual imagery’ of the absolute reality of the Sun. Objectivity seems in superposition but never a vacuum.

There may be one truth or good that may truly stand as everybody’s truth and good but it cannot stay as one ‘objective’ truth or good for all for another second as it shall fall prey to the subjectivism of energy of human consciousness. It seems, vacuum cannot stay for long, or probably, it does not even exist. It does not seem like a natural state of things for conscious subjectivism.

Is it that we live in a world that has no singular and objective realism? It is there as it must be there. It is altogether different matter that either we have not yet found it or not yet establish it. Nevertheless, what human consciousness sees and accepts as ‘real’ is not the objective and singular one, but the subjective one and that is why, the world we live in is seen, observed, accepted and retained as subjective multiplicity. The pluralism of consciousness of humanity makes it happen.

Consciousness is almost always subjective and truths and goodness for each individual has to be in line with this pluralistic subjectivism. This subjectivism ensures relativist words and terms like ‘ignorance’, ‘false’ and ‘bad’ etc. As truth and false, good and bad are in essential nature of conflict and competition, there shall always be strife and battle for one-upmanship and supremacy of subjective truths and goodness.

The world we live in has therefore truly turned into a theatre of insurmountable conflicts and chaos. Be sure, there is no looking back for humanity… it shall always continue its journey ahead. The key question is, ‘Is pluralism and subjective consciousness bad?’As we said earlier, it seems, there is nothing called ‘bad’. It is just a relative positioning. So, what is objectively and singularly bad?

It is a tough question; needs to be understood. If bad is taken as something which stands against larger wellness of humanity (and not only personal