स्वराज
Often understood as स्वयं का राज, I think it is स्वयं पे स्वयं का राज.
If the unknown, unidentifiable other defines what success means, what good life means while you often realise that these definitions aren't working for you, but still aren't able to break away, then you are ruled over by something outside.
Does that mean that you can arrive at definitions of your whim or मर्जी? Robert Pirsing, in his book 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance', wrestles with this question: 'Is quality a physical characteristic of the object or a subjective understanding of the onlooker?' He arrives at an answer that quality is a third entity, which exists independent of the subject and object.
So are these definitions. Nature/God or the Universe already has these definitions and one ought to seek them. Once sought ought to live by them.
Many friends say, "I know this is the right thing to do, but it isn't easy to just give up on what is."
It maybe true, but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is that they aren't governed by their convictions and realisations of truth.
So much at micro (individual) level. Now let's get to macro level. स्वराज isn't relevant for a society in which individuals don't have स्वयं पे स्वयं का राज.
If we accept that we are such a society, what does it mean to someone who is serious about स्वराज? He can't be a part of this society. He can lead the changeover, but he wouldn't be allowed to.
He can become a cult leader, but it comes with the risk of forming a religion.
Life is tough.
Comments
Post a Comment