I saw a TV programme where Kamal Haasan was answering a question in a live debate - "I've lot of respect for the institution of family because it symbolizes unconditional love. But marriage is a legal handcuff that caters love based on conditions. Why do we expect a few things from our spouse that we don't expect from our parents or siblings?" In short he was trying to ask an obvious question - why do you expect your spouse to be so-called-faithful TO YOU when you don't expect it from the other entities of the institution of unconditional love called the family.A tight slap on each of our perceptions, ego, self-centredness and what not! You'll notice that the slap was even tighter if you realize that these rules were mostly set by the men of the society and the women got a pretty raw deal, just as how the upper caste set the rules against the lower caste of the erstwhile Indian society. If you're someone who thinks marriage is a nobler bond than any of the other bonds in the society, you might find it difficult to appreciate this. But if you're someone who thinks possessiveness is just a decent term given to selfishness in a relation, you will surely appreciate this. I'm right now scared to type more, I'm not as brave as Kamal. So I'll choose not to continue until I see how I handle this selfishness myself.
The answer to your question was explained to me so beautifully while at the same time, so simply by Ba3 earlier today. He said,
ReplyDelete" You CHOOSE yourself into a relationship called marriage. Therefore you have expectations out of it.
The other family relationships happened of their own. You had not choice in it. So your expectations, conditions are admittedly lower"
And he said one more thing, "There is only a notional term called 'unconditional love'. Every love is 'subject to conditions'. But some relationships are simply 'more' unconditional than others. That is all"
I think these two statements from Ba3 answer very clearly Mr. Kamal Hassan's statements.
End of the day, society has defined marriage. So as long as you want to be in it, its better you go with its rules. Changing it is an option but constant change is necessarily not good.
I concur with Ram. its always unconditional subject to some conditions.
ReplyDeleteQuoting from your own blog - "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."
ReplyDeletehttp://dianthus.blogspot.com/2009/02/love-and-nirvana.html
i agree..but im not sure if i can't be possessive :((
Nice thoughts.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it was sth against marriage as such, but it was abt making the bond nobler. How nice will it be if every bond is equally noble and the noblest! I read this strong statement somewhere - "Don't be a beggar in a relation always expecting something. You can never be happy. Think about giving and you'll realize how big your space can grow". I think this was probably what Kamal was telling too and that's how I interpreted it.
But whatever you both said makes complete sense. Even as I respect a rebel's opinion, I equally respect the institution of family that was essentially built on the courses of marriage. You can't see one entity in separation. I agree, if something has sustained itself through ages, then there has to be some truth arnd it and it's better to follow it.
Two rational geniuses to tame one destitute cub! I can't handle, help please! :)
I'd like to quote something in the context of this blog:
ReplyDelete"To fall in love is easy, even to remain in it is not difficult; our human loneliness is cause enough. But it is a hard quest worth making to find a comrade through whose steady presence one becomes steadily the person one desires to be."
And when you love a person, ideally you want all his / her love to urself. And I must admit
that I might not have risen above
this feelings viz. loneliness / selfishness and uphold the idea of marriage and the rules around it as defined by our society. But is it time to learn to deal with these weaknesses without resorting to crutches like marriage/possessiveness ? May be it is or wait a min, not yet .. I have a faithful husband / wife and I have kids, why bother ;-)
"Don't use marriage as a permit to fight your loneliness and a license to uphold your selfishness" - ten fingers on my cheeks ... five on one, from Kamal and five on the other, from you.
ReplyDelete"I won't be surprised if someone tells the earth of andromeda galaxy has humans happier than those on the earth of milky way galaxy coz the former doesn't have the concept of marriage. But probably they've a society different from ours, so it suits for them" - if u won't post it, i will :)
ReplyDeletei don't think marriage should be a process that promotes vices in ppl, if it does, then it needs to be examined. but as far as i've seen ppl only get better after marriage, may be they show all their vices to that one person? point to ponder.
ReplyDeleteAnbilar ellam thamakuriyar anbudaiyar
ReplyDeleteEnbum uriyar pirarku.
The loveless wants everything for himself while those with love give everything to others.
I think the selfishness in love is not out of love, it's out of something else, probably as one of you pointed out, it could be out of our fear of loneliness.
After thinking for some more time, I should again acknowledge that whatever Ram and Badhri told was wonderful and "justified" enough. I'm still thinking whether it "answered" enough - meaning yes, there are reasons, but are they rightful?