Gibbrish?
I remember reading a book (I think it was by Anne Tyler) in which the protagonist says that Gibran was the spiritual guide of her generation, and she wonders who is the spiritual guide of the current generation. Well, I guess the spiritual guide of our generation would probably be Paul Coehlo. Almost everyone I know has read him and has been influenced by him. Its funny how each generation finds its own spiritual guru. Twenty years from now our kids will probably not understand what the fuss about Coehlo was all about, and they would probably have their own spiritual guru for their generation.
Which brings me to a very important concept that I’ve been thinking about – is there something inherent inside a person which makes him a hero to a whole generation, or is the result of circumstances and his becoming a hero was inevitable given the playing out of events and circumstances?
Was a Gandhi inevitable, and he just happened to be named Mohandas? Did the circumstances of Mohandas’s life make it inevitable for him to emerge as the mahatma, and had there been anyone else in his place, then would he have also become a mahatma?
Well, there is one way to reconcile the two views. If I walk into a room and see three equally long lines, I can then do two things – a. choose any line and stand in it. Or b. try to determine the fastest moving line and get on it. Now in the second one, I am choosing what circumstances I wish to place myself in, in order to have the fastest progression.
Similarly it was no coincidence that Mohandas was born in the family he was born in, and he was born at the time when he was born. He chose his birth in such a way that it ensured his progression to the level of a mahatma.
Does this make sense? This blog I’m afraid was written in two instalments, and I think it might not have a coherent point, or proper structure. Please give me your feedback on the same.
Which brings me to a very important concept that I’ve been thinking about – is there something inherent inside a person which makes him a hero to a whole generation, or is the result of circumstances and his becoming a hero was inevitable given the playing out of events and circumstances?
Was a Gandhi inevitable, and he just happened to be named Mohandas? Did the circumstances of Mohandas’s life make it inevitable for him to emerge as the mahatma, and had there been anyone else in his place, then would he have also become a mahatma?
Well, there is one way to reconcile the two views. If I walk into a room and see three equally long lines, I can then do two things – a. choose any line and stand in it. Or b. try to determine the fastest moving line and get on it. Now in the second one, I am choosing what circumstances I wish to place myself in, in order to have the fastest progression.
Similarly it was no coincidence that Mohandas was born in the family he was born in, and he was born at the time when he was born. He chose his birth in such a way that it ensured his progression to the level of a mahatma.
Does this make sense? This blog I’m afraid was written in two instalments, and I think it might not have a coherent point, or proper structure. Please give me your feedback on the same.
posted by philosopher stoned | 10:13 AM
1 Comments:
Good stuff man. Its a really nice theory.
Another way to look at this whole thing is to view it a destiny versus choice issue. The best explanation for that contradiction I found in an e-book written by Scott Adams (the creator of Dilbert) called God's Debris. Its a choot ebook overall but he makes this point.
If we believe in destiny then there is no room for free will or choice. Everything that we do then is pre-destined. And if we say choice then there cannot be a destiny. And yet, he says, both concepts exist together. Heres how he explalins it:
He says the answer lies in probablity. If we toss a coin twice, we cant say for certain that the end result would be one head and one tail. but if we toss it enough number of times, we can say with great certainty that there will be equal number of heads and tails. Essentially, the EVENTUAL outcome is predetermined, but what happens to the individual tosses, well, that still is upon us.
Explaining it here however, i fail to see why i found this theory so impressive. it sounded like such a good theory a moment ago.
Post a Comment
<< Home