The Three Slaves

In an unknown mountain region, on a plantation, there lived three slaves. They were enslaved to toil from morning till night. Sometimes to level a field, sometimes to clear a path, sometimes to lift heavy stones.

Being human, they could not help but reflect on their daily lives every once in a while.

The first slave was an obedient one. He did what he was told, and enjoyed the meals, the shelter and the bonds of his family. He knew that if he rebelled, his family would suffer from hardship. He wanted to become a more privileged slave, an overseer. He always saw the "silver lining" in every cloud, and was the eternal optimist. A day of heavy work, and he would look forward to an easy one. An easy day, and he would play with his children.

The second slave was a rebel. He thought that rebellion was a necessity, given their fate. He knew that his family would face difficulties, but he thought for the next generation, and did not want his children to have the same master, who he thought was unjust and cruel at times. He wanted them to travel, to seek their destiny, and to choose a kinder master. He even had wishful thoughts of a master elected from a community of slaves.

The third slave was in the habit of asking "Why?" and "For what?". For any outcome, particularly a happy one, he thought for a second longer than either of his slave friends, and commented: "But death awaits in the end," and ruefully lamented his mortal fate. He frequently thought of suicide, but even that he concluded to be a meaningless gesture and not worth the drama.

One hot summer day, all three slaves were resting in the afternoon in the shade of a large tree. Their backs resting on the earth, their faces upturned to the view of sunlight shimmering through the leaves, their legs aching from the long march of the forenoon.



The first slave was deep in the thoughts of his wife who he imagined was waiting for him in the evening. He did not mind the tiredness much. He knew that the other two slaves called him a buffoon and a simpleton and a lackey, but since his wife loved him, he was happy.

The second slave was engrossed in thinking of ways to escape the plantation. He thought that any place must be better than this, where he had little choice in how he spent his day. He regarded his wife at home as a weary and sad creature, a conformist and a seeker of certainty, who prevented him from being a true revolutionary.

The third slave was tossing and turning. He could not imagine a worse place to be, but he could not also imagine that another place would be better. He had still not finished his meal, as every morsel reminded him of the death of the living thing which was now his food. He had had a wife once, but she had left him.

An old man, himself a slave of yore, was passing through the plantation and stopped to rest near that large tree. He looked at the faces of the three slaves and casually asked all three: "So how's life?"

The first slave: "It is nice to rest for a while, innit?"

The second slave: "How is life over there, beyond the hill?"

The third slave remained silent and turned his face away.

The Law, part 2

First part here.

(Before the Law by Franz Kafka)

The Law is esoteric, and its practice is a matter for experts. It is said that "Ignorance of Law is no excuse", but who knows the law completely?

The Law can never treat people equally because people's recourse to law differs, their power to defend themselves differs, their power to engage others to defend themselves differs.

Law is impersonal. The judge has to regard a criminal as well as an aggrieved person without subjectivity. In normal life, we judge people from their faces, stature, clothing, mannerisms, body language, tone of voice, warmth, vibe, tears, smirks... To all that, Law is (and perhaps should be) blind.

The ideal judge would be a computer which through sheer formal analysis decides the matter. Ideally, laws would be specified in formal language. But then, they would be opaque to who they impact.

Are there undecidable matters, impervious to rigorous analysis? On what basis are they decided in the real world? The judge's mood, the lawyer's energy, the regularity of the plaintiff's jaw?

In civil suits, there is always someone trying to gain unjustly. If they lose, the courts rarely if ever punish them for the harassment caused to the winner. Their loss of the lawsuit is deemed sufficient penalty. Costs are rarely imposed. "Dragging" someone to court, if concluded in a loss for the plaintiff, must be considered a criminal offense. It is not very different from dragging someone to a wrestling pit and then raining blows on them, forcing them to defend themselves.

Most people disregard the extent to which the economic disparities are conserved at the point of guns. If you see massive disparity in a society, but no guns, look closer.

An act to violate someone's rights is one kind of a crime. I think it is also a crime, perhaps a greater one, to put someone in a situation of peril where he has to break the law in order to uphold his rights and his peace. It is a greater crime because one has created a criminal from a righteous man, and then the might of State is turned onto him. From then on, he will not trust the machinery of law to protect him, and will regard it as foolishness to be law abiding.

Creating a just Law is one of the most solemn tasks given to man. The Bill of Rights is a paean to the American notion of freedom, and limits to what extent the State shall govern the citizens of that country. "The congress shall make no law ..." On the other hand, consider the language of the Fundamental Rights of a slavish country like India:

Freedom of speech and expression, which enable an individual to participate in public activities. The phrase, "freedom of press" has not been used in Article 19, but freedom of expression includes freedom of press. Reasonable restrictions can be imposed in the interest of public order, security of State, decency or morality.

Freedom to assemble peacefully without arms, on which the State can impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order and the sovereignty and integrity of India.

Freedom to form associations or unions on which the State can impose reasonable restrictions on this freedom in the interest of public order, morality and the sovereignty and integrity of India.

Freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India though reasonable restrictions can be imposed on this right in the interest of the general public, for example, restrictions may be imposed on movement and travelling, so as to control epidemics.

Freedom to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India which is also subject to reasonable restrictions by the State in the interest of the general public or for the protection of the scheduled tribes because certain safeguards as are envisaged here seem to be justified to protect indigenous and tribal peoples from exploitation and coercion.

Freedom to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business on which the State may impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public.

While in the US Bill of Rights, the State is prohibited from infringing on a certain right, in the Fundamental Rights in India, the State is given discretion to violate those rights.

When the lawmakers are non-representative, then the duty of a citizen to abide by those laws is not a given.

Civil Disobedience is today a crime.

The Law

One frequently hears: "Do not take law into your own hands." It is worth asking: "Why not?"

The truthful answer has to be: "Because you cannot be trusted to be just."

The law is a surjective mapping of states of anguish and outrage to procedural remedies.

If somebody does you "wrong", then you file a complaint, and watch as the circus unfolds.

Since the Law takes care, your masculinity, or bravery, or courage, or cowardice are irrelevant.

The law is meant to protect the weak, and thereby weakens the strong. It is a move towards equality. An effective law-enforcement system is essential to social equality.

The Western genre of films and fiction is a celebration of masculinity precisely because law has not been delegated to institutions.

The Hero exists because he directs (or resists) his fate. If the tools of engaging with fate are relegated to others, then heroism is going to become extinct.

There are no heroes in a metropolitan city. There are only those who know the process well, and others who are relatively ignorant.

The nerd is the future of man. The nerd is not an actor, but a twiddler.

"The opposite of manliness isn't cowardice; it's technology." (N N Taleb)

"Knowledge is power", but when it replaces "Will power" then it leads to emptiness and psychological impotence.

War is the absence of Law. There have been efforts to internationalize law, but to little effect. Countries fight with their neighbors using all the means at their disposal, but criminalize the same activity between two individuals within the nation. Even shouting at your spouse is a criminal act in many modern societies.

Some say, and I agree, that modernity is the dominance of the intellect over the emotional. Intellect is procedure, and procedure is by its very nature a wet blanket for the fire of emotion.

The Law can be considered a further step in the same direction. To not only relegate to reason, but to relegate to others whose job it is then to work within reason to address a wrong.

Unless it consists of psychologically neutered individuals, a law-abiding society is an alienating one.

The more law-abiding a society, the more it will need faux outlets for fulfillment.

The tribal does not need enlightenment. The city-dweller does. What the city-dweller seeks nostalgically is a feeling of aliveness, which has been usurped by the machinery of the city.

Consider (simplistically) the three levels of living: physical, emotional and intellectual. The city values only the third, with the first two being artifacts instead of being natural, spontaneous parts of one's day. How can it be a fulfilling life?

The Law is institutionalized and formalized conflict-resolution. What people seek is revenge and to hurt the other and to see tears on the other's face, what Law cares about is written argument and whether the affidavit is notarized. It is not nearly the same thing.

It is an interesting question to ask whether an advanced and evolved society will have more laws or less. Whether it will be able to trust its citizenry to be just and therefore take law into their own hands.

Gun control laws are opposed by "conservative" men unwilling to become applicants to the state to redress their wrongs, but are advocated by "progressive" feminists, leftists and believers in democracy and its institutions.

(to be continued)

Seeker vs the State

"My girlfriend is a vegetarian, so that pretty much makes me a vegetarian." (Jules Winnfield, Pulp Fiction)

Relating to a seeker is hard work.

Any relationship has a set of expectations. The very act of relating is a human act, which fulfills certain emotional and social needs.

If the relationship has no emotional expectations (say with a bartender), even then there might be expectations of a certain consistency in behavior, quality and service. Any transaction, even a conversation, is pleasurable only insofar as it assumes certain facts about human nature and about having a common ground of what we value.

A seeker seeks to challenge and to transcend the status quo of existing mores, values, sets of expectations, roles, automatic mental states and behavior patterns.

A significant question is: If everything is to be questioned, then what is to be enjoyed?

Traditional religion seeks to moderate our aggression and to cultivate nurturing and love. A religious person (as opposed to a fanatic) is generally found to be forgiving, kind and a believer in peace and harmony.

On the other hand, liberalism, hard-core spirituality and new age pooh-poohs personal love, the bonds of family, the joys of kinship, the harmony of complementary roles (parent-child, brother-sister, employer-employee, husband-wife) and tries to establish an egalitarian equality between humans (treat your child as a friend, your wife as a friend, your teacher as a friend, your employee as a friend).

This equality may seem like a progressive idea, but it leads to confusion, chaos, constant re-evaluation of any expectation born of roles, and hence stress. The student may gloat over a teacher who never scolds, but imagine how much harder the teacher has to now work, in the absence of authority. The wife (in a patriarchal society) may initially welcome a husband who decries and protests against gender roles and biological differences, but after a while she (as well as the husband) will be thoroughly confused. Any expectation or resentment towards the other will be evaluated and questioned internally rather than it finding resolution via the other. Spontaneity might be left to trite matters, such as having dinner and who showers first. For the deeper emotional needs and growth, egalitarianism might be counter-productive.

A seeker likes to say that he or she does not need anything from the other. Not only is it narcissism in disguise ("you are not important to me"), it is counter to human nature to be in a relationship where there are no needs and expectations. It is no longer a relationship then, even though there may be regard, politeness and care. Fellowship is a poor cousin to love and attachment.

If the other is important, then it means I am not sufficient for my own happiness, and this admission is highly problematic for a seeker.

Of course, personal love (like all matters human) is problematic and rarely a smooth ride. But a seeker's rejection of its undeniable role is even more problematic. The rejection of personal relationships genuinely leaves no space for the other. The other has all the space, limitless in fact, but that is not the same thing as the other having a space in one's heart.

Those relating to and loving a seeker are not primarily looking for compassion, but passion. Not friendship, but belonging. Not detached playfulness, but attached longing. Not forgiveness all the time, but also anger and reactivity. Not just a soul, but also a body and a mind and a heart.

A seeker thinks that by diminishing reactivity and normal human impulses, he/she is making it easy on the other. This is a fallacy which needs to be probed. The impulses and reactions and needs and expectations and suchlike are what a relationship is. In the absence or diminishing of these, the relationship itself is diminished. It may become more peaceful in some sense, but it might be a fundamental mistake to think that peace trumps passion.

In the absence of normal human patterns, the relationship itself, being a human phenomenon, is nullified.

A spiritual seeker's primary, perhaps the only, relationship is with himself/herself. Despite protestations to the contrary, a seeker always puts himself, his values, his Utopian ideals, his seeking, first. Everything else is secondary.

Meerabai is an archaic case in point. Another one is Gandhi. I am not saying that they did not make valuable contributions to humanity or that they should have left their vocation for the sake of their husband or wife, or that they were not evolved or thinking people. I am saying that their personal relationships were failures and this fact needs to be plainly accepted as a consequence of placing more importance on what one believes than what the other person needs. Gandhi, in his (perhaps misguided) battle against his libido, never asked his wife if she was thereby sexually starved.

Is it inevitable that someone who challenges the status quo in one field cannot live a somewhat conformant existence in another? Perhaps not.

It is an error to go too wide in one's seeking. All that one will achieve at the end will be Oneself. It is not such a big prize, come to think of it.

Monkhood is therefore a more rational choice if you want to go all out (not that I recommend it). Then you do not put another through the misery of having his/her expectations thwarted.

Seek and question, but also accept. Do not blindly question everything. Accept what brings you joy, and what brings the other joy. Accept the transience of joy. Accept that joy may leave sorrow in its wake. Accept that joy outweighing sorrow is a life well-lived. Accept that needs are not fictions. Accept your own humanity, and that of the other.

To subject another to total rationality is to be insufferable.

To look too closely at everything is also a defect of vision.

Aphorisms on Suffering, part 2

Part I here.

The unconscious mind is not fully ours; it is part animal, part heritage.

The conscious mind is not fully ours as well; it is part society, part reasoning.

As Freud pointed out a century ago, civilization is a yoke on our instincts. That is what makes us human.

Similarly, reasoning (which is individual) is in constant friction with conditioning (which acts at the level of the collective).

"Will" is something marvelously human. It is to act under the guidance of the neo-cortex, with the drive (say, lust, or to seek approval) very likely being beneath the surface.

Suffering is the inability of our drives to find fulfillment and flourishing, either due to internal conflicts, or because of opposition from outside. An example of the former is lust versus shyness. An example of the latter is the desire for financial security versus currency inflation.

The conscious brain's primary purpose is to mediate between the various conflicting inner drives ("have better self-esteem"), and to seek a workaround/path through outer obstacles ("try to have a nest-egg in the bank").

Suffering has grades, obviously. Something might just lightly impinge on our moral senses (a news item about corruption in a far-off country), or something might lead of a paroxysm of pain (the death of one's child).

As long as one wants a certain state of affairs, the distancing from that state of affairs is tautologically painful.

Ved Vyas (in Bhagwad Gita) was naive is exhorting people to pursue a goal without desire. Why will they pursue at all? Why will someone go through intense pain and obstacles if there is no desire for the result? The most probable reason for this kind of exhortation is to have people follow the desires of others (kings and brahmins), which is an interesting kind of peaceful co-existence.

One's dharma is, in quite a few cases, others' desires.

Desire follows from attachment to certain states and values. If you say you do not desire anything, but still engage in willful acts, then you don't know yourself, yet. (it is at least highly probable that you are attached to a certain philosophy of seeming detachment, with spiritual undertones)

What is perhaps more useful is to say: Don't be needlessly attached. (someone criticizes Bon Jovi, and a fan commits suicide)

As long as there are inner drives, it is inevitable that they will conflict with each other at times. Inevitably, they will require prioritization and lead to suffering (the lower priority drive will feel thwarted). "What do you want more?" is an interesting question of the psyche, and one which has not received the kind of attention in spiritual literature that it deserves.

Similarly, as long as we exist in a physical world with limited resources and competition, it is inevitable that our desires for objects will meet with resistance.

To live is to live with this complexity.

The more developed someone's neo-cortex is, the more is the possibility of his conflict with his inner drives and with the external world. In that sense, though an infant cries, it is more in bliss than an adult who cries (because an infant's conscious brain does not intrude and say: do not cry).

Perhaps "ignorance is bliss" is better phrased as: "unconsciousness is bliss".

As an adult gains in consciousness, he gains also the consciousness of the various conflicts inside and outside. A child is blissfully aware that the world is an arena of conflict. An adult has to live with this knowledge. An adult wishes for infancy at times, but forgets that as an infant he was taken care of by other adults who had to live with what he wants to avoid.

If the inner conflicts are unbearable, psychological intervention is required. Similarly, if the outer conflicts turn violent (say, a war-torn zone), UN is supposed to step in.

On the other hand, there is a normal level of conflict (inner and outer), and hence of suffering, that is considered acceptable. A horny but shy adolescent is a normal human being. A poor man wanting a better life is considered to have normal desires.

Unfortunately, a high degree of suffering (due to circumstances, or due to sensitivity) can make one give up on life as it is, as being too stressful and not worth it. Depression, introversion, renunciation while in youth, celibacy, suicide, (unless whimsical) are results of severe maladjustment.

To know that suffering is inevitable, but to want to study it deeply and act so that its needless instances can be ameliorated (e.g. in cases where it is not a zero-sum situation), both for oneself and for others, is the hallmark of adulthood.

Seekers are infantile in their self-superiority.