Marriage:Complete Surrender

Almost one and a half year back during my wedding reception my father-in-law introduced me to his very good friend, a businessman from Delhi. He warmly greeted me and introduced me to his wife. We were having a casual chat and he joked. Aniket, let me tell you one thing, there is only one secret to all successful marriages, its "Complete Surrender". All of us had a good laugh. I had almost forgotten about it until few days back I subconsciously shared this joke with some one and I started think about it to understand: Does "Complete Surrender" really has a secret to a happily married life.

In my opinion Yes and No. It purely depends upon the perception of "What am I surrendering?"

When I first time heard the joke, my reaction was simple, Surrender of once bachelor-ship, freedom, opinion, right and identity (NOTE: Very much is casual sense). But when I rethink of it I guess I see a more clearer picture. Yes, in "Complete Surrender" by both husband and wife lies the path towards happy marriage . But its very important to define Surrender of what! Opinion? Freedom? Identity? I don't think so. On contrary I don't even think one can surrender them , At most one can achieve is suppression of their own opinion and voice.

Doesn't matter which relation we talk about opinions are meant to clash against each other. Be it Parent-Child or Husband-Wife or a Friend. Opinions are crucial for our identity to exist, for us to exist and no two people will ever have exactly same identity and so its natural to have difference in opinions on different topics .So the clash of opinions in nothing but natural. Parent-Child opinion collision happen and do resolve as parent have edge and authority[Not always, but many a times]. Among friends we avoid opinion clashes to avoid conflicts, it relatively more simpler. But for a healthy marriage opinion-clashes are inevitable, and the challenge is how do we resolve the differences. Neither parents way nor friends ways of dealing with clashes works here.

Many couple feel the heat of incompatibility sooner or later and they may have a list of situations, examples, scenarios supporting the same. But digging a but deeper there seems to be a single root cause. When ever there is collision of two object there is generation of energy. Any clashes would inevitable generate energy if not dissipated smartly would add to the incompatibility sum. What we call incompatibility is nothing but inability to accept the difference in opinions and the thought processes.

Equilibrium. peace, harmony and tranquility can be achieved only when we find a way to dissipate the energy. Next obvious expectation is to find a way to let this energy disperse/release. Interesting the quest to this solution would lead us no where, may be because we are asking a wrong question. May be it would be more appropriate to ask, what is stopping the energy from dissipating? Since we are the source of energy it is natural for the sink as well has to reside within.

In my belief answer is quite simple and it should not take anyone by surprise, I feel its our Ego which insulates the heat from sinking in. And it is the complete surrender of this ego to each other is where lies the happiness of married life.

This is not a theory, Neither it is a fact. Its not based on observation, nor on conscious experience of mine. Its purely sequence of thoughts my mind went through. If you think its complete rubbish, I will agree with you more then anyone else.

Once I was having a discussion with my brother about "Nature and Evolution". I thought Evolution as a sophisticated, well defined process. Whereas according to my brother it was series of coincidences. But either way we agreed that process of Evolution has some sort of feedback loop of itself which continuously tries to reduce error or reach equilibrium. Any change in the the Nature/Surrounding and adaptation begins.

Each and every living being follows rules laid by nature without questioning, knowingly or unknowingly except US(Not United Stated but Humans). Now here is an interesting question I would like to pose: "Was Human Evolution part of Nature's master plan or was it a coincidental mistake?". Its like one of the nature's experiment went terribly wrong and she created Human: Very fast evolving and adapting destructive creature. Surprisingly it sounds similar to "Terminator" kind of or Spielberg movie where machines created by humans overpower them.

"One's own creation for its own destruction."

So, why are we causing harm to nature when we know we cannot live without it. In my opinion though humans have extraordinary intelligence they suffer short sightedness.
They are incapable(or unwilling) to evaluate long term consequences of any event/discovery/invention.

On contrary I would make a strong statement: Inventions(creations) is nature's job. And we(humans) have taken over it. Nature knows what its doing. But humans have taken over this process without understanding that creation is God's(Nature's) work. And it does come with lots of responsibility of understanding and evaluating rewards against consequences for whole nature.

I cannot think of single human invention (may be bcoz of my ignorance) that has benefited Nature/Earth/Evolution. We invent for humankind, we do not invent for necessity but for comfort. Every invention at first go seem harmless and sheer beauty. But when whole of mankind starts using that invention it has its toll over nature. And unfortunately yesterday comfort becomes today's necessity and the irreversible process continuous.

we live happily - > we create fire -> we burn wood -> Fire gives us heat -> Fire becomes necessity -> everyone use fire -> everyone burn wood -> cannot live without fire -> cut more trees -> cause more pollution -> Go to G8 summit -> discuss how to reduce emission -> go home -> Celebrate launching of space shuttle Endeavor. Huh!

......thoughts

I happened to meet Dhananjay today morning at Blood camp he and his friends had organized for Nirman. On my way back home I was thinking about the discussion I had with him regarding social issues and how they are trying to spread across the goal, motto and purpose of Nirman.

Human mind is such a fascinating thing. Even before an eye blinks it can travel across the globe and come to the pin point halt from where it started. The thought process which took off as I was waving good bye to Dhananjay too meet a similar fate. I am trying to share the thought process I went through, you may agree, disagree or criticize, partially or completely, my way of thinking. You will be welcomed.

Let me begin with a very controversial question: Is there ANY similarity between a terrorist and social activist? I believe that they are at the 2 opposite ends of the same curve. Terrorist always looks for destruction, violence and imbalance, Social Activist on contrary desires peace, equality and development. But still the question remains unanswered: What is the common thread that connects them? I feel it’s their state of mind or more precisely a complete devotion for a very well defined purpose and more importantly putting forth their purpose before self.

A year ago I came across a book named “Freakonomics”. An interesting point the author was trying to make was; doesn’t matter how noble or sinful our actions are they are always motivated by what he calls “Incentive”. Kindly make a note that incentive need not always be monetary or materialistic it can even be love, affection, ego, respect, importance or above all happiness. Every action we do good, bad or ugly is weighed against incentive we see. To give an analog, it’s a greedy algorithm. At every node we have set of options to choose from. These options are weighed against their respective incentive which in turn determines our actions.

So, what’s the point? The question I wanted to ask: Why is it so easy to find fanaticist/terrorists/Goons compared to social activist? A common man can rarely belong to class of Goons but why he is neither a social activist? He is the one who is most affected by social turmoil’s and imbalance. He is the one who is most frustrated with the dysfunctional social system. Then why, why he is the one who is most tolerant? It should not be difficult to answer this question. It’s quite simple he cannot see much of an incentive.

A common man has as much motivation to do a social good as much motivation terrorist has to do evil; the difference exists in the monetary incentives. A terrorist would come with pounds and dollars where as a common man has to worry about earning money for his daily bread, or may be for his own house or may be for children education or their wedding. Does he really have time to think about environmental issues and awareness, social causes and their betterment? And finally do we really think that a global and social upliftment can happen without the contribution of a common man.

No amount of awareness campaign will be enough to gather an attention of a man walking on the street, if you really want to make him get involved give him enough incentive. He may come forth and contribute to your social cause without realizing he is doing so? Here is an example, give an advertisement in a newspaper:
ADV 1: A graduate tutor needed to teach Math for underprivileged children for NGO
ADV 2: A graduate tutor needed Rs.2000/month.
No need to mention which adv will attract more applicants.

Every person may not have the depth and sensitivity towards a social problem, BUT every person can play a role in solving it. For social activist efforts towards solving a problem and seeing a better tomorrow may be good enough incentive to be motivated. Where as Rs.2000/month is a good enough salary for an unemployed graduate. He need not understand the bigger picture which you as social activists or a reformer can see.

When ever we think of an NGO, or organization working for social cause, why do we think it to be a non-monetary organization? Why can’t it be a full fledged Corporate Organization having 2 independent wings.

- Industrial Wing: May be any profit making industry, for that matter say IT services company having a well defined hierarchy, just like any other organization, a highly professional organization with sole goal of making profit.

- Social Wing: A wing full fledged devoted to social development. A complete monetary profit of Wing-1 is diverted to a social wing. Which as well would have people form various streams, from law to arts, from medicine to engineering; from school teachers to clerks getting paid as good as they would if worked for any public/private sector.

I know you may say it’s like building palace in air. But please try to understand the zest of the communication. A young youth who is socially motivated should not be in dilemma of taking risk purely based on financial circumstances. Why not there be world where people stop referring to some people as social activists and call them social professional. Why not there be a world where there would be social career is looked upon as an opportunity rather then risk.

I know the whole thing sounds stupid. But who cares. Thoughts are likes waves who says they necessarily need a purpose.

Hmmm...

Data mining Consultancy Pune

A Vague blog....

A new post on my blog after a very long time. It surprises me how one thing lead to other and we happen to do things which we have never planned. There were so many important things about which I want to blog. But I didn't, as I didn't had enough of time (A LAME excuse). Anyways, it's 11.30 pm . Tomorrow I have to catch flight for Pune at 9.00am and its high time I take proper rest (This was what I was thinking few minutes back). And I don't know why, I just felt I should visit my web pages on cse site and as I was reading through those pages, lost in usual nostalgia....I saw the link "My Blog" clicked over it....and started reading my own blogs...Everytime I read them I enjoy it more...each one of them are in different mood and time and space....And I dont know why....I just felt putting the vague thoughts right over here....The place where they originated.

Rarely in life we have moments where we can express exactly what you feel....the way we feel.....the instant you feel. I didn't want to go lose one of those rare moment.

Theory of importance.

Everyone wants to feel important. Nothing wrong about it. But at the same we want others to give us importance, to treat us to be special and we feel disappointed when this does not happen. Its the unconscious mind and buried ego that demands such a behaviour. Most of us refuse to accept this fact but its an futile attempt.

The theory of importance states that, every individual seeks for importance from selected few sources(individuals/friends/family), and feel hurt if these sources fail to do so. This concept of "importance" shows itself in two stages which are linked in complicated manner. One cannot exist without another:
1. The source approaching an individual and making a proposal giving him importance. eg. Ram asks Shyam would you like to come for movie.
2. Refusal of proposal to feel important. eg. Shyam refuses to come for movie.

Lets analyze above example: Shyam may not be really interested in watching movie. But what if Ram who is Shyam's good friend goes for movie without telling him. When Shyam learns this fact he feels disappointed. Why? The reason being Ram did not give him importance which he expected and had taken for granted from him. The fact whether he is really keen on watching movie becomes secondary and immaterial. Worse still Shyam would certainly argue that he would have come for the movie if asked.

What if we bend time-space continuum and travel back in time. And see what happens when Ram asked Shyam for a movie. Expectations are so vicious thing, we take them for granted. Ram gave importance to Shyam but for Shyam never thought he needs to appreciate this gesture. On contrary what happens next is very interesting, Shyam refuses the proposal, the reason is obvious he is not interested in movie. But there is another dark side to the decision. Acceptance of proposal is like surrender to others will and losing our importance. So you refuse and our subconscious mind feels contended.

It would be difficult for all of us to accept the part of the theory which says, "Importance of refusal." I guess it is too harsh. But when I try to justify Shyam's statement, "I would have come for movie, if Ram had called.". I cannot think of alternative explanation then what I have given.

Its important to try to understand the theory by putting ourselves in the first person and ask why do I feel disappointed if my friend/family do not ask for my opinion or consider my choice. Irrespective of the fact what answer I would have given the thought that troubles us the most is not the original question under consideration but our lack of trust in the other person and feeling of betrayal only because other person did not give me importance or in other words hurt my subconscious ego(Which none of us think we have).

Drinking is bad, Its a Sin?

Recently I found myself in middle of the following conversation.
Lady Friend: Do you Drink?
Me: Yes, Why?
And I could see her face change. As if those expressions said, "Drinking is bad, Its a Sin.". I didn't extend the conversation because harder I would have tried to explain that "Drinking" as normal act more it would have looked like a "Justification of my so called Sin".

Being in Goa for last 25 years. The place is so much influenced by western culture, that drinking alcohol never came to me as a cultural shock. No one ever argued about drinking as good or bad act neither anyone insisted others to have or to stop drinking. Over the years being in goa, the implication, "Boozing implies addict/hitting wife/vomit/bad-mouthing/lying in gutter" never occurred to me as such examples were rare compared to number of people I had seen drinking. May be its because of the maturity of a particular community towards a particular aspect of life.

But certainly that gaze of my friend still confuses me. I pondered alot not for "Justification of an act" but rather to take it to a level above. Coming back to the original question, "Is Drinking bad/sin?". Hmmm... Certainly the word "bad" in itself is relative and solely depends upon an individuals perspective . But still taking a step ahead, I would say an act is bad if that act results in physical/mental anguish of society or group of people or of an individual himself. And in my opinion a person who is an occasional drinker hardly indulges himself in any activity which is hurtful to the society or an individual. OK. The above explanation may seem like a justification. In which case lets talk about something else. Lets consider work. "Is working bad?". Certainly not. That's the most creative and constructive thing to do. But is it always the case. Have you ever encountered an Workaholic? A person who is so passionate about his work, that he spends 12-14 hours working (certainly there many of them in IT industry.) Do they do justice to their own physical/mental health or the health of their family and society. The statistics say that, the rate of suicide, divorce and impotency is the most in IT industry and cause being the workload and competition. So working hard is bad?

The point is how well a person knows where and when to stop. Let it be work, playing. Internet gaming, love, emotions, orkutting, chatting and for that matter drinking. By their inception they are not bad, its an inability of a person to control their actions is where the problem lies.

In my opinion people take "Drinking" at its face value. You would see a person fully drunk lying beside road-side and happily conclude "all drinkers are the same". But one would never peep into a devastated lovers heart and say "No one should fall in love". You would not see fights in Workaholics home and stop putting extra hours at work. You will never understand the depression of "gaming freak" and stop playing minesweeper. No doubt addiction is bad but it does not make the act itself ruinous.

Recently I happened to interact with gals and most of them were of strong opinion that their to be husband would be "Non-drinkers". Its very much same as when guy say my to be wife would be with "Good looks and figure". Certainly both are the wrong means of judging a person. I always feel tempted to tell these gals please think of maturity and integrity of man before having "Non-drinker" specification on their list. Its certainly worth being with a man who knows the difference rather then a man who is ignorant about it.