This is inspired by the comments to my first entry by Rashmi and conversations with Marisa and Pulkit. I didn’t quite understand the comments fully made by Rashmi at that time, since I was thinking in a different context in my first post. It is little abstract, in order to avoid diluting the real thing. There is some noise though.
State of the World vs. State of the Mind and the Middle Path
So, how can we make a contribution to this world? The obvious first thought is to change the state of the world. Another school of thought is to change the state of the mind. Yet another is ‘I don’t care’. Perhaps, the best one, in my mind, is the middle path between the first two.
The first one (Logic): After some thought, we quickly realise that this is difficult thing to do for individuals and perhaps even more difficult to assess. The amount of influence we have as an individual to change the state of the world is limited; but certainly, some positive, how-so-ever small changes can be made. Very temporal.
The second one (Spiritual): Without much thought, we quickly realise that this is difficult thing to do. But, unlike the first, the amount of influence we have as an individual to change the state of the mind is complete and absolute.
(Some interesting noise: I think there are domains where logic is not applicable, and when applied leads to misleading, but intuitive thoughts or worse, chaos. So, if we accept this then, we must realise that there will be things that we don’t understand at any given time; a) which someone else may have a better understanding at that given time, or b) we may understand it better in some other time (past or future)).
The third one (Ignorance is bliss): This viewpoint is fine. It may or is likely to change sometime in future, which is good. (Some interesting noise: If ignorance is bliss, why do we seek knowledge? – by someone).
The last one (Borrowed from Buddhism, in particular, Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's interpretation of it): Why Middle? Is it because I couldn’t make up my mind? No. The answer is little vague – Consider two things.
a) ‘Nature has better imagination than humans’ (by someone famous, prob. Feynman).
b) I was recently told that Buddha tried a simple experiment in quest for happiness – he ate lots and lots of food, but didn’t find happiness; he tried no or very little food for several days and didn’t find happiness. But the middle path, created by nature, gave most happiness.
A middle path that aims to positively change the state of the world and the state of the mind, should create a mind that is least surprised by negative changes in the state of the world or the state of the mind, as it benefits from the best-of-both and allows for mutual-compensation. By least surprised, I mean least surprised by noise.
The easy bit - that describes the middle path, is done. The difficult bit is me absorbing the idea, more so, following it and even more - assessing it. It also appears that there is little conscious effort that can be made to absorb or follow it, assessment seems un-necessary. If so, then this reduces to a sub- conscious thought.
What’s the point of this blog entry? The point is not to convince you something is good or better, but to simply put something in your sub- conscious, which by reading this has already happened (reminds me of the ‘Don’t think of Pink Elephant’ that someone recently mentioned to me!).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Middle path - moderation. interesting idea.
Interesting thought....especially the one about Buddha...
This ‘Don’t think of Pink Elephant’ therapy really works...
Would it be possible to give some historical examples of changing the "State of the World", changing the "State of the Mind" and the "Middle Path"? I'm having trouble understanding the difference between the three.
I think the "state of the world" and of the "state of the human mind" (btw we could argue about the validity of ideas stilted on such undefinable concepts) are probably always linked. And perhaps the direction of the cause/consequence relationship that emerges when a change affects them is very difficult to establish with certainty.
"The easy bit - that describes the middle path, is done. The difficult bit is me absorbing the idea, more so, following it and even more - assessing it. It also appears that there is little conscious effort that can be made to absorb or follow it, assessment seems un-necessary. If so, then this reduces to a sub- conscious thought."
Among the three stages you have described- absorption, following the path, and assessment, buddhism (in my understanding) lays strong emphasis on the second step i.e. learning from experience or experiential reality. Experiential reality makes the other two seem futile. Therefore, substantial conscious effort can be made to "follow " the path which would actualize this "thought" into actions. Vipassana meditation, is one such example. Vipassana "changes the state of the mind" and indirectly enables the "person to make changes in the world". I would recommend you to look into it.
Thanks for your viewpoint - It is very interesting and useful. I'll keep in mind what you have said and try to understand more. However, sometimes I find great fun in understanding things myself by reinventing the wheel, so assuming consciousness of an act is difficult, till I learn it on my own.
Hasn't some written something somewhere about the path of least resistance.
So the middle path you spoke about would be similar.
well.. there is a buddhist concept of oneness of life and environment, which says that to realize a desirable change in our environment we need to bring about a desirable change within us. this concept finds its basis in the law of cause and effect.
this implies that every human being on earth has the potential to change the world itself. if we can cross the limitations set by out intellect and training as we were brought up we can realize that the world is "mine" to change.
"a change with in a single man can bring about a change in the society and can eventually change the destiny of a nation" - Dr. Daisaku Ikeda.
this in effect means that a change of our perspective can by itself cause us to feel that there has been a marked change in the situation itself. In other words making the same world seem better or worse depending how we CHOOSE to see it.
Robin,
Thanks. However, I don't have any good examples just yet that would clarify the thought. Any examples that come to mind confine the thought. I'll try more.
Warm regards,
saket
Dear Saket,
I read your article and found it to be interesting. I have a few words to share. The most interesting line in the whole article which caught my fancy was 'nothing can stop an idea whose time has come". This is was prompts me to add on to your article.
I strongly believe that there is a mass / social consciousness. The six billion odd humans each have a independent mindset. They all think differently. They all act upon their free will. But cumulatively every action and thought by every human being leads to this civilization which is increasingly beoming global in nature.
This civilization as a whole rejects and accepts ideas very rapidly. When we say that "the time has come " for a perticular idea then that essentially means that the global conscious is the deciding factor.
When we blame the world for the way it is we essentially blame the way the global mass conscious has evolved. On and off comes a leader who is able to impress every individual mind which cumulatively modifies the global thinking process.
No matter how good an idea is, if it is not well received by the majority of the race it does not get wide recognition. That is when the time for the idea has not come.Since man is a selfish creature usually many ideas are not nurtured or allowed to expand by common choice since they might hurt some large /powerful sections of the society. Only when the idea is powerful enough to influence millions of lives does its time come indeed.
For example very soon the world will face a huge energy crises when the conventional energy resources will vanish. What will happen. If the world survives energy wars and is able to realise the importance of peace then fusion energy which is still in experimental stages might be our saviour. While fusion has few takers now (and i am sure the oil lobby is not keen on it), in a energy crises stage fusion will have mass support. That is when we can say the time for an idea has come.
Else some powerful visionary / institution foresees the benefit of an idea and is able to convince / force upon the immature minds the idea and it may blossom.
So when we talk about chanign the world we must realise that it is a global thought process we have to change. Individual action does count but if some one really wants to bring in reform then he has to target powerful institutions throught which he can force / influence masses quickly.
Else i feel all sacrifices are a big waste. The idea is to rise high, be at the best place in the world where one can command resources and influence public oinion and then truely one can do good for the world.
Grass root level revolutions have been successful only in times of extreme global misery not in our present times of a divided prosperity.
Thanks Raghav. A very interesting perspective indeed. Thank you. One thing that stands out is that you are focussed on changing the 'State of the World'. I'll let other readers comment on your thoughts.
The middle path is indeed the best ......but i feel that while pursing on the middle path it is also necessary for one to learn to think from others viewpoint.....we can always influence others by our own actions but when we try to understand the ppl with whom we live then we can influence the world better ....tiny drops do fill a vessel but rain fills it faster...so it i necessary to operate at the wall which separates our mind from the world ...just as was done by the writer because when he wrote he taught in others perspective ,something which the readers would accept........
indeed it was a great article
Hi Saket,
The state of the mind and the state of the world are dependent on each other. This is because we individuals make the world. In order to bring about change in this world ,we need to change the way we individuals percieve and interpret things. The day we human beings realize this, the world would be a better place to live. Again the flip side is that the human mind is influened by his surroundings, so the existing enviournment influences the way he thinks, acts and behaves.So the question remains unanswered.
It reminds me of a famous quote "what came first in this world? the chiken or the egg". This is because this cannot be answered
Post a Comment