Good News. My friend sent a text stating that his 'roka' has happened. {Roka: Hindi word derived from the root which means, 'to stop / put hold to.' In this context, refers to a ceremony prior to a formal engagement. This is the time both parties stop looking out for a prospective partner}.
Well, I feel so happy for him. There have been so many struggles for him. And in many of them, I can identify. Being a single, uncommitted male is not easy. Contrary to what many may think, life is not a bed of roses.
First, of course are the distant family members who leave no stone unturned in poking the rib, "...so when are you getting married? Its high time." Heck - do girls grow on trees? That I go and pluck them? Then of course, come the so called friends, "...what are you doing? She is such a good girl - the right one for you..." And they go about trying to get you hitched. Then come the last of the lot, "...is everything ok? Hope no alternate preferences?" Well, sounds funny, but when you go through it, it is not.
The point is not about marriage, nor is it about preferences. It is simply about my own dignity as a human being? Am I really incomplete without marriage? No - I don't say that I won't get married; with a right person, I will settle down. But what is this hurry to get hitched?
And if marriage is about a commitment and a relationship, then why is there such a brouhaha about 'conventions'? Is it that we are too scared to question ourselves?
What is the purpose of marriage? From an evolutionary perspective, it is about ensuring perpetuation of species. But talk as we will at a philosophical and psychological level, what is it really about? Is it not about relationship? In building relationship with one, a person builds up a family which in turns builds up the society. To my judgment, a marriage is as much about family as much it is about appreciating the opposite sexuality as projected out and slowly over time finding a manifestation of the same within? For a man, it is about coming to terms with feminity and for a woman, about coming to terms with masculinity?
The individual starts with his / her need first and places it before the society for its fulfillment. In order that a fair process takes place, society builds around that process / transaction a set of contracts, which convey the expectations and over time become conventions. So to my mind, managing a family and thereby society are the contracts; the individual need is to merge with an aspect of self that he/she has not yet found within. Call if found within, unacknowledged, rejected or projected out - whatever it may be. Perhaps this is topic for another enquiry.
But do I not have both the masculine and feminine self within? Is not the purpose of life to integrate both within our self? Not having a partner then is not so much about another person missing in life, but about an aspect of my own self missing.
If I pine for a woman, then does it mean that I am "normal?" Or does it simply a reflection of the unacknowledged and unexplored feminity within? Reverse would be the case for a woman. I recollect Eric Fromm in "The Art of Loving". At one place, he speaks about two people hopelessly falling in love. They talk about it as a sign of true love; but in reality, it is only an expression of the earlier utter loneliness. Can loneliness ever be cured by presence of another?
Or am I confusing being alone with being lonely? The more I see it, the more I realise that I will forever be lonely in life. I can manage not being alone - the social circuit takes care of it. But in my deepest of moments, I am utterly helplessly lonely. My moments of utmost profundity, bliss, deepest agony - all have been with myself. The only communion I had was with my inner self. If this be the experience I have, and nothing could be truer than the experience, then, why is it that at times I still try to not be lonely.
I recollect that on one occasion, I'd written in my journal, "Loneliness is not about not being with someone, it is about not enjoying my own company completely."
While, I do recognise and experience what I write, I also experience at times a desire that this loneliness be wished away. Is this then a question of "understanding the truth of loneliness" vs. the "truth of desire"? What is the issue then? Is it the conflict of understanding of the truth of "what is" with the desire / hope of "what could be"? Perhaps.
As a logical step, understanding 'what is' is about being in the moment; while desire for 'what could be' is about a flight to a place that is away from the moment, from the 'here and now'.
But a question comes to me, "If I were to accept 'what is', then what is the motivation to move forward?" Would not everything be ok and acceptable then? This incidentally is a question not just for the specific issue of relationships, but also for our whole lives? Would it not lead to inactivity (or 'tamas' as they call it?) I ask this, as I am tempted at times. Or have I understood this wrong somewhere?
I have no answer. Am stuck. Food for thought as I push off to sleep. In that moment of utter loneliness, possibilities emerge. Hey - talking of sleep and loneliness therein, why is it that I have a negative connotation of the word 'loneliness'? Is not sleep the most enjoyable thing - for me? So is it the situational and contextual meaning that I give? Which comes from my pain of ''what is not" which in turn comes from a desire for "what could be"?
Circles - all the way. Having written all this, I come to the circle again. I still feel happy for my friend. His text radiated the joy of a heart. And in this moment, he is pure joy. And is joy not about communion with my own self - in its complete loneliness?
I started off with relationship, meandered all the way, and am back to it - relationship. With another query: what indeed is a "relationship"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment