Skip to main content

Maturity - a journey from Birth to Death

Life is a journey from birth to death and there are many angles from which to look at this journey. One such angle is “maturity”.

At birth one is here to “get”. When a baby dirties his/her diaper they cry; the baby continues to cry till the diaper is changed or the baby goes blue in the face. The baby does this to “get” their diaper changed.

At death one leaves this world and whatever he has with him. Everything he had, if only a torn piece of cloth is left behind. He “gives” to anybody who is there to take it.

This is a journey from “get” to “give” and the journey in between is what I describe below.

The journey viewed in this way has three stations. The first station belongs to the baby and to the child who eventually grows into a demanding teen. When his demands cannot be met his parents “resist” and so the teen has to develop a new tactic. He has to “give to get” and this then brings him to the second station [He has progressed from “get” to “give to get”].

Many of us are now in the second station. Social exchange theory talks about an “economic transactional view of a relationship”. Since such a view is true of our closest relations it is also true of our interactions with other employees at the “work place”.

The reason most of us are compelled “by a force of nature” to move to the third station [in which we “give” without wanting to “get”] is the dissonance we feel in the second station. This is because as long as we expect to “get” we hand over some power to the "other" and this leaves us somewhat vulnerable.

Note if you want to “get” from somebody else, something tangible like “money” or intangible like “significance” the other will always have some power over you.

And this is why the “second station” may even be accompanied by a lack of “sincerity”. This is because the motive behind “giving” is not “for the sake of giving or helping the other” but for some “return”.

It is only in the third and final station that the person feels “complete tranquility”. Here the individual “gives” without expecting to “get”. The reason complete tranquility is only possible in this station is because when you stop expecting to “get” you close the doors to [internal] conflict.

The example below might explain the third station better.


This example is about a dispute between a Hindu and a Muslim over a garden [The roles of the Muslim and Hindu could very well be reversed; this example is only given to highlight the significance of the third station]. To resolve the dispute the Hindu sought the help of a religious Hindu group that decided to march to the Muslim’s house to demand the “papers to the Garden”.

With the mob outside and his family inside the Muslim “seemed to have” few choices left with him. He walked out to the group and asked for their leaders to come inside, to resolve the matter.

He showed the group leaders the papers, requested them to go over them and told them he would accept whatever decision they took.

The group left and the leaders were to review the papers. On review the leaders found clear evidence that the Garden did in fact belong to the Muslim.

They returned the papers to the Muslim and asked the Hindu not to misuse them again.

The point this example serves is: When the Muslim decided he could “let go of the Garden” is when he had most leverage over the situation.



The switch from the second station to the third station requires a change in perspective. You still “get” as the Muslim got back his garden but you get because people are “willing” to give. Here you get because you tap into the rules of nature [rules of reality]. You get because “God has promised this”.

Some people have also said of “heaven” and “hell” that to them neither is important; they are driven to fulfill their “purpose” by their “love of God” and by this love alone. Perhaps this is what they mean.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Explanation of the movie 'Revolver'

I saw the movie for the umpteenth time last night and I finally got it.

This is what the movie says:

1) In every game and con there is always a victim and there is always an opponent. It's good to know when you are the former so you can become the latter.

2) But the question is how do you prepare yourself for this game?

3) You only get smater by playing a smarter opponent.

4) The smarter the game the smarter the opponent

5) Checkers is an example of such a game. Chess is a better game. Debate is an even better opportunity to learn and so on.

6) But the question is where does the game stop? or one can ask what is the smartest game one can play?

7) The answer according to the movie is: "The game of con you play with yourself".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text below has been added on 3 Dec 2008 and is based on a comment posted on October 30, 2008, at time 4:12 PM. I have only recently understood what this person meant and it is …

What the journey means to me

My journey so far has been about discovering the meta rules of how the self works. The essence of what I have learnt is that the self can change and in fact does change every time it undergoes an experience. Where any experience is significant because of the meaning it carries for us. It means something to us by the fact: it changes our feelings from state (state a) to another state (state b). Where this movement between states is a process we can call witnessing.  The exercise of witnessing can be powerful and enriching.  In fact if we could communicate what we have witnessed through poetry or through prose, perhaps with the aid of metaphors, we could share these experiences with our family, friends and with the larger community. 
Thus to go in retrospect and search for meaning in the experiences we have had can help us grow mature, become stronger and make us more aware.

My Criteria for my marriage partner

1) She should be a home maker. 10 on a scale of 10
2) I should be able to fall in love with her and her with me … 7 on a scale of 10.

First criteria:

10 on a scale of 1-10 for this criteria because I consider my family my second self. The better my partner will be at making my family the best the better off my second self will be. Who doesn’t want to aim for the best? In accordance with this she should have the best of the characteristics that every home maker should have:

1) Intelligent
2) Practical
3) Ability to take stress and bounce back – agility of mind
4) High level of commitment
5) Principled
6) Caring
7) Want her children to be the best
8) Want to learn how to make her children the best

Of course there is an ideal woman out there who would rank very high in all these areas. But then I have to be practical too. I would want to marry the most ideal woman who is compatible with me. Compatibility is covered in the second criteria.


Second Criteria:

Description of scale:

5: passes the basic crite…