Becoming Whole
Education is an extremely messy business. We often find educationists, politicians, social thinkers, and, indeed, almost all parents getting involved in intense debates over issues such as who shall get to educate whom, who needs to be educated, the contents of this education, how education is to be extended to different kinds of people, what types of education are to be devised for different categories of human beings, and the rewards, punishments, encouragements, and reformations that shall go with this whole process. One reason why such issues give rise to never-ending discussions is because it is quite difficult to get people to agree on how we shall go about achieving one of the expressed purposes of 'education', which is to 'make people whole'.
There is, of course, no shortage of 'extremist' views in this matter, and the following suggestion is my own. Children should be taken to graveyards or cemeteries, possibly on a Saturday/Sunday evening, and left there for half an hour to wander around and ponder on what lies beneath the grass. I do not say this for deliberate shock-effect, for I really do believe, perhaps reductionistically, that this is one the readiest ways to solve many of our human problems. Many of such problems arise, I think, from our inability to recognise, accept, grasp and 'internalise' this simple fact : I, the writer of this blog, and you, its reader, may be dead in the next two minutes. It is, in fact, so simple that one can be excused for feeling overwhelmed by the variety of means that we resort to in order to ignore or disguise it, run away from it or cover it up. I myself have plenty of them at my disposal : the attempts at getting a Ph.D., a developed habit of reading through a potentially infinite list of books, a certain taste for music, and an acquired training in asking all sorts of questions. And there are thousands of other such things which are up for grabs, starting from astrological speculations to investment banking to internet surfing to kayaking to motor racing to sumo wrestling to yatch building. Consequently, we begin to see so much of ourselves in what we have acquired that we almost begin to hope for a kind of vicarious immortality in and through them; we shall die, but we like to hope that at least our children, our cars, our Ph.D. theses, and our yatches will endure beyond our deaths, so that the more of the latter that we can acquire, the higher are our chances at attaining a life after the grave.
Regular trips to cemeteries can have a potent educative value in eradicating from children any latent desires that they might be harbouring for such immortality. But, then, of course this is hardly a proposal any ('optimistic') parent will listen to, and even as I write these words I can already hear the objection coming up, 'How utterly morbid and pessimistic that is! How can you send our lovely koochie-kooo children to dark, damp, and bleak graveyards when they should instead be playing around with dogs, cats, butterflies, dahlias, and lilies under a sunny sky?'
Yes, indeed, I would not recommend a daily visit to the graveyard to anybody, irrespective of that person's age. However, a cultivated habit of spending half an hour --- which is not asking much, if you remember that a week has 168 hours --- can make people feel 'liberated' from this world in a manner that those who think that graveyards are 'only for the dead' probably know nothing of. The next time you are in a graveyard (or have had the ill-luck on stumbling upon one at a carefully sanitised corner of your City) go through some of the epitaphs, and you might come across one of a man who died in 1745. And then slowly think : 'Not only this man himself, but also those who grieved when he had died, have been dead for over two centuries now.'
And when you see the setting sun, let it all sink into you : your cars, your shoes, your softwares, your essays, your books, your academic prowess, your music, your pastels, your fame, your glory, your novels, your blogs, your poetry, your prestige, your photographs, and whatever else you might have labelled 'yours', are as insubstantial as the shimmering mist over a dawn lake. This realisation, trust me on this, will not set you sliding down a slope of despair. Rather, once you have really 'internalised' the future possibility of your non-existence, you shall become truly whole, and neither life nor death will then have any power over you. Is this a 'pessimistic view of life'? As for the medicine prescribed, it is sure a bitter pill to swallow, and especially for those who may even refuse to believe that there is a malaise within themselves. But as for the remedy promised, what else could be more optimistic?
10 Comments:
At 14.1.05, Anonymous said…
You forgot the DVDs!
Though I agree with you I also feel that we do what we do to make life a little liveable.It is to fill up the empty spaces which when empty threaten to fill up with despair. So sometimes in order to fill these empty slots we go ahead and aquire more matter not because we love it but often because it is readily available
At 14.1.05, Anonymous said…
interesting proposition. you have diagnosed the malaise well, but the solution is impractical. moreover, lets first get the parents to look inside. do most parents really know what they are getting into when they decide to have children? what subject are you getting a phd in, by the way?
At 15.1.05, Anonymous said…
Dear Anonymous 1,
It is exactly this despair that our transparent ironist promises freedom from with his medicine. If you start taking a regular dose right away you will know very soon!
Dear Anonymous 2,
I think it is the MOST practical solution I have ever come across! And I must say that a five year old would be much more capable of digesting the certainty (the only one I know of) of death than a grown up who has whiled away most of his life running away from it.
Dear Ankur,
Now you are talking business man. A warm warm hug for you!
At 15.1.05, The Transparent Ironist said…
Reply to Anonymous 2 : I would suggest that the decision to have children springs from the wish for some kind of a vicarious immortality. People who have had enough of the amount of suffering, misery, and agony pervasive in this world would not wish another generation to be immersed in it.To put it provocatively, people who want to have babies hope that though they themselves will die very soon, their genes will survive them. (Though that raises interesting questions about whether one can refer to a set of genes as 'mine' or 'yours'; that is, whether genes can be individuated from the anonymous heap of the 'gene pool'.)As for the subject in which I am doing a Ph.D., it is what is called, to use somewhat technical language, 'comparative philosophy'.Or to be more precise, it is an investigation into the concepts of time and human embodiment in some classical Hindu and classical European thinkers.
At 15.1.05, Anonymous said…
---and quiet flows the fan mail.....
At 15.1.05, Anonymous said…
Anonymous 2 here again. I dont see how the solution can be practical. The spectre of death, in all its complexity, cannot be communicated to a child. How can the subject of death hit home unless one has gone through some sort of evolution? Surely all who have gathered here know their personal histories and what brought them to this particular watering hole. Without the context of that experience, do you think you would be able to "contemplate" death, without it becoming an empty intellectual exercise? The Satipatthana Sutra describes the nine contemplations on the decomposition of a corpse, but these contemplations are typically prescribed only to the practitioner who has had considerable experience with meditation. Such a practitioner is surely not your average Joe, but one who has dedicated his/her life to understanding the true nature of things. Yet his/her mind is not capable of wrapping itself around the concept of impermanence, without years of meditation practice. How, then, can we expect a child to contemplate death? Lets be more pragmatic. If you really want to bring about that kind of consciousness expansion at an early age, you have to start somewhere else, somewhere more basic. I dont claim to know (yet) what that appropriate starting point is, but surely it cannot be a place that denies the vitality and preciousness of life. Now you might say that the subject of denial only takes root in an adult mind which is sufficiently entranced by the intoxicating power of language. But I think that for a child, who has not been able to control his/her senses, let alone his/her thoughts, whose first instinct is to live and conquer the world, and whose bedrock of experience offers no discrete soft spots upon which such a seed as you suggest may be implanted, the contemplation of death and mortality makes no sense. To me such a suggestion only amounts to so much polite controversy.
At 16.1.05, Anonymous said…
Dear Anonymous 5 (this numbering bit is getting a little complicated),
The point is not contemplation but acceptance. Authentic contemplation cannot precede acceptance. So while a child may not be able to contemplate about death as the practitioner you described may (thank God for the child), he certainly must be ‘educated’ to accept it. And this education is needed because the first instinct of the child might be to run away from the insecurity, and it is the responsibility of the education system (if education means what it is supposed to) not to give him a pseudo-safe cocoon to hide in, but to give the right nourishment and support so that he is able to come to that acceptance.
And do you really belive that the vitality and preciousness you just talked about belongs to life. As I see it, it belongs to death. The moment I took my first breath I did not begin to live, I began to die. The term ‘life’, to me, is the ultimate irony.
At 16.1.05, Anonymous said…
"Authentic contemplation cannot precede acceptance" - do you have any experience with meditation? It appears from your statement that you do not. Contemplation is not, as I described, an intellectual activity. You cannot intellectualize your way into acceptance. As I described it, contemplation is acceptance. There is no inconsistency between the two. I am rather taken aback by your take on life. Unless you develop the attitude that life is precious, you have no hope, and you forfeit your right to be any kind of teacher about how to live. Sorry, but thats how I see it. Anyway, as I said, these are polite controversies. The real test is to do, not to say. The yogi does, the intellectual blogs.
At 16.1.05, The Transparent Ironist said…
"The yogi does, the intellectual blogs". I am in whole-hearted agreement with that statement. Though I would add a third category in between the two, that of the ironist. The ironist writes about that intellectual who blogs about the doings of the yogi. Or, the ironist writes about the doings of that yogi whom the intellectual blogs about.
At 17.1.05, Anonymous said…
The real test is to do and then say.
The Yogi does and then blogs.
Post a Comment
<< Home