The Nirvana that I'm going to speak about here is in no way connected to the eternity that is written in books. This is just a different perspective, and not a controversy and speaks only about love.
I was wondering if there's something wrong in my beliefs. But over the last few months, I have met a few people who share my beliefs. So, I mustered the courage to type this out. May be it's a misfit to our generation, but my rational sense approves these thoughts completely - the concept of Lesser Mortals (LMs) and General Mortals (GMs). I decide to call GMs as General Mortals and not Greater Mortals because I don't actually see anything less or great in these categories - different people, different perceptions, nothing is less, nothing is great ... nothing is good, nothing is bad. Anything that creates better harmony is great.
There are three attributes to the classification:
1. The relative importance you give to self, family, friends and others
2. The feeling that "shared" love is not "divided" love
3. The understanding that love/marriage is not nirvana
The relative importance
Are you someone who treats self > family > friends > others in terms of relative importance? Before answering, you should know the difference between importance and priority. On a given day, I could ignore my family for work, that does not mean my work is more important than my family. That particular moment, I had to "prioritize" work before family. I might have to prioritize self before family before friends before others many times, but that does not mean they share a descending order of importance. Will I give up my comfort for family? Yes. Will I give up my comfort for friends? Yes. For others? Yes again. But in the process, I will have to evaluate the disharmony I create, both inside and outside me. That is when I will have to prioritize. But if you think you can't take any discomfort for the sake of anyone else, even if you don't lose anything in the process, then you are not a GM.
Shared love
I believe love is such a wonderful feeling that can be shared with 100 people at 100% for each. Love when shared is not divided. A mother does share equal love with all her children. At different moments, she might have to prioritize, but then the intensity will never change - she will give her life for all her children with the same feeling in her heart. This is why mother's love is so pure - the unconditional undivided pure shared love. Any love that you think is divided when shared, I feel, is not pure, not from the love's perspective, but from your own perspective. You are impure! If you think your mother's love is divided when shared, your love for her is impure. I don't mind saying a very powerful statement here - if you think your wife's love is divided when shared, your love for her is impure. Well, that could be the most controversial statement of the century, but I strongly feel it has the truth that I see in it. If you don't believe in any of these, you are again not a GM. If you're not a GM, you can neither believe nor practice shared love.
Love is not nirvana
We've been speaking about love and nirvana but if you think love/marriage is moksha or nirvana and that there's nothing more to achieve in life, then you're again not a GM. Life is actually much more. In fact love and marriage just mark the beginning of a wonderful journey for the rest of our lives. Once a friend asked me what is the one question you would like to ask your wife. I said - "I want to be part of your success in life. Will you be part of my success in life?" Love and marriage should be something that adds 1+1 to 3, if not more. It should increase my love for my parents, it should increase my love for friends, it should increase my love for people. Love is a tool to attain nirvana and love by itself is not nirvana.
I don't know which category I belong to, but I know I at least understand what I've told here and fully approve of it. I want at least one other family to cry for me when I'm gone. I want to "meet" lesser and lesser LMs and more and more GMs in my life, because I think that way I can achieve more than what I can individually and also make the other person achieve more than what he or she can individually. I want to make this world a wonderful place for whomever I think I can and for whomever I feel needs.
I was wondering if there's something wrong in my beliefs. But over the last few months, I have met a few people who share my beliefs. So, I mustered the courage to type this out. May be it's a misfit to our generation, but my rational sense approves these thoughts completely - the concept of Lesser Mortals (LMs) and General Mortals (GMs). I decide to call GMs as General Mortals and not Greater Mortals because I don't actually see anything less or great in these categories - different people, different perceptions, nothing is less, nothing is great ... nothing is good, nothing is bad. Anything that creates better harmony is great.
There are three attributes to the classification:
1. The relative importance you give to self, family, friends and others
2. The feeling that "shared" love is not "divided" love
3. The understanding that love/marriage is not nirvana
The relative importance
Are you someone who treats self > family > friends > others in terms of relative importance? Before answering, you should know the difference between importance and priority. On a given day, I could ignore my family for work, that does not mean my work is more important than my family. That particular moment, I had to "prioritize" work before family. I might have to prioritize self before family before friends before others many times, but that does not mean they share a descending order of importance. Will I give up my comfort for family? Yes. Will I give up my comfort for friends? Yes. For others? Yes again. But in the process, I will have to evaluate the disharmony I create, both inside and outside me. That is when I will have to prioritize. But if you think you can't take any discomfort for the sake of anyone else, even if you don't lose anything in the process, then you are not a GM.
Shared love
I believe love is such a wonderful feeling that can be shared with 100 people at 100% for each. Love when shared is not divided. A mother does share equal love with all her children. At different moments, she might have to prioritize, but then the intensity will never change - she will give her life for all her children with the same feeling in her heart. This is why mother's love is so pure - the unconditional undivided pure shared love. Any love that you think is divided when shared, I feel, is not pure, not from the love's perspective, but from your own perspective. You are impure! If you think your mother's love is divided when shared, your love for her is impure. I don't mind saying a very powerful statement here - if you think your wife's love is divided when shared, your love for her is impure. Well, that could be the most controversial statement of the century, but I strongly feel it has the truth that I see in it. If you don't believe in any of these, you are again not a GM. If you're not a GM, you can neither believe nor practice shared love.
Love is not nirvana
We've been speaking about love and nirvana but if you think love/marriage is moksha or nirvana and that there's nothing more to achieve in life, then you're again not a GM. Life is actually much more. In fact love and marriage just mark the beginning of a wonderful journey for the rest of our lives. Once a friend asked me what is the one question you would like to ask your wife. I said - "I want to be part of your success in life. Will you be part of my success in life?" Love and marriage should be something that adds 1+1 to 3, if not more. It should increase my love for my parents, it should increase my love for friends, it should increase my love for people. Love is a tool to attain nirvana and love by itself is not nirvana.
I don't know which category I belong to, but I know I at least understand what I've told here and fully approve of it. I want at least one other family to cry for me when I'm gone. I want to "meet" lesser and lesser LMs and more and more GMs in my life, because I think that way I can achieve more than what I can individually and also make the other person achieve more than what he or she can individually. I want to make this world a wonderful place for whomever I think I can and for whomever I feel needs.
Didn't understand much, but a shiver runs down the spine when I think of a GM.....
ReplyDeleteLM's are my type. People I like to hang around with and call as friends. Because I know they are like me.
Hehe, I've met a few GMs who share this same shiver as yours - they shiver thinking about LMs in their lives.
ReplyDeleteI don't know about the shiver part, but I know 50% of world's problems will be solved if everyone were a GM, who could give unconditional undivided pure shared love to everyone. "Love is god" and I am a theist. :)
remember? we were discussing this shared love thingy when u were in the US.it was fun :) . U said u'll still stick to one woman. If u believe in shared love so much then u should practise it too. That way ur wife can show that her love for u is pure ;)
ReplyDeleteDepends on whether my wife's an LM or GM ... anyway, I'll discuss with her and reply to this ;)
ReplyDeleteLMs feel the love is divided, and LMs want all the love for themselves, I would say they are selfish, but impure .. am not sure. LMs / GMs let all live in peace.
ReplyDeleteBut I understand LM / GM combination can be disastrous :)
based on the three attributes, which i think are absolutely true, i think i do qualify for GM.
ReplyDeletewill take this opportunity to say Hi to a GM like me... :)