SPIRITUALISM vs SEXISM

I often find it hard to understand, why is it that for most of the times we ought to conceptualize things in terms of polar opposite notions, so much so that the adherence to one requires the complete denial of other. It’s not the case that I am unaware of the fact that maintenance of these so called opposite categories provides us with necessary tools for the theoretical understanding of these categories; however, we need to proceed with this unavoidable caution that with such a tool we will only have partial understanding of these concepts in terms of their intricate interrelationships. Here, for instance, let’s consider what makes people think that spirituality necessarily involves negation to sexism. As a matter of fact, most of our Rishis (sages), following Varnashrama, didn’t hesitate in cherishing desire for beautiful ladies while pursuing spiritualism. As for as, my own take on this (and other similar issues) is concerned, undoubtedly,I find this to be a healthy practice (in terms of amalgamation of right proportion of subjective and objective necessities), so that both soul and body could attain required nourishment. Here, it is important to emphasize the fact that this idea is only intended to support the view that there is nothing called pure negative, and we need to allow a synthetic approach in order to have a sort of practical understanding of these concepts rather than treating them to be irreconcilably wide apart like never meeting banks of a river.

SALVATION vs BONDAGE

There is a huge body of literature especially in spiritual-philosophical literature on these polar opposite concepts, but here I shall confine myself in the realm of Indian philosophical traditions only. As soon as the idea of salvation is defined in terms of non-attachment and their by ultimately reaching to a level from where there is no returning back, the very concept of bondage being polar opposite to salvation naturally got related to the notion of attachment resulting in the constant involvement in the process of coming and going, i.e. in the so called notorious concept of cycle of rebirth, without giving a second thought to the concept of salvation itself in terms of its exact nature.

Here it is interesting to note that it’s often not clear what it is exactly people crave for salvation or bondage. To my mind, this is one of the most difficult issues which could not be resolved easily, as a matter of fact; it appears that beyond a certain level either of these concepts will be intolerable. Then the question is what we desire for??????

As a kind of solution it seems to be a fairly logical contention to hold that we seek a kind of equilibrium i.e. to say equal proportion of detachment and attachment both.

The kind of concepts suggested in some schools of Indian philosophy, as salvations in terms of Moksha or Nirvana do not, in my opinion, appear to be as dynamic a process which could have suited highly dynamic human life.

FRIENDSHIP vs ACQUAINTANCE

One may wonder what caused this man to explore this issue, as a matter of fact I have always been a keen observer if not a sincere explorer of conditions which play key role in the making of human relationships at various levels. For more than a year or so, I am struggling to understand a term which defines a sort of relationship generally ranked slightly lower than friendship proper, but yet to realize its significance fully, or in other words more and more its import is revealed before me more I become aware of the futility of this concept.

Out of variety of human relationships, I find friendship most worth noting as it involves comparatively more freedom of choice and its highly mutual nature (in contrast to blood relationships, marital relationships, love relationships etc.). Certainly, this is not to suggest that friendship is a sort of monolithic relationship, rather it’s a kind of multidimensional scale ranging from best to worst friends and placing many somewhere in between. In a discussion, one psychology wala told me that generally friendship is defined as a relationship which has two constituent parts INTIMACY and COMMITMENT. Then, if we take these two above mentioned elements as defining features one may be tempted to characterize acquaintance as follows;

ACQUAINTANCE = INTIMACY – (minus) COMMITMENT

However, my ever doubting mind is yet to accept this (acquaintance) as a sort of term defining human relationships, especially, in the light of this fact that we have multi-dimensional friendship scale. Rather I consider it as a kind of euphemism where one refers to someone as acquaintance if one does not want to hurt him/her but at the same time cannot ignore him/her altogether.

PRAISE vs CRITICISM

This is to share my bewilderment in understanding human behavior with special reference to the question of peoples’ praise and criticism for others. In other words, here aim is to express my ways of understanding the grammar of above mentioned behavior, what actually one does when he/she praises or criticizes someone. It seems that this very act of praise or criticism is preceded by the following acts/processes.

LIKING /DISLIKING

CONFORMITY /NONCONFORMITY

It has often been reported that same act may cause two distinct responses (in this case praise or criticism) from the same person depending on whether someone likes or dislikes the person concerned. In turn, what makes someone like/dislike the other can best be viewed in terms of conformity/nonconformity. It appears to be a general tendency that we like similar persona that is to say that conform to us in their behavioral pattern and dislike others who behave differently. This can be shown graphically in the following linear order one followed by another.

CONFORMITY/NONCONFORMITY > LIKING/DISLIKING > PRAISE/CRITICISM