There is something in common with most philosophers. They seem to be against the idea of desire. One could easily dismiss that as 'sour grapes' on the grounds that philosophers are only those people who are unable to gratify their desires. Unfortunately for that argument, a leading light of the 'desire is the root cause of sorrow' school of thought is the Buddha, who was a prince and, thus, more capable of gratifying his desires than most. So...
I am sorry for disappointing you if you thought that I was going to say that Tiru came out in support of desire. Not so. He was also a vehement supporter of the anti-desire lobby. As in this...
Inbam idaiyaraa theendum avaavenum thunbaththul thunbam kedin - Tirukkural
There will be everlasting joy if you are rid of desire - that woe of woes - Loose Translation.
It is a rather tough thing, isn't it, to conceive of a desireless existence. I mean, if you desired nothing then what would be the purpose to your life? After all, you get up in the morning with a zest to do something only because you are working to satisfy your desires. Without desire, there is no ambition, there is no progress. No?
The problem is probably that we do not understand whether the philosophers conceive of desire the same way as we do. Or, rather, they probably DO conceive of it in the same way we do. It is just that we are too hypocritical to accept that there ARE things that we may want to do, things that can stoke your ambition and thus fuel progress, that we ourselves may not consider as 'desires'. It is just that we find it convenient to club those things also under desires so that we are absolved of the need to vanquish desire on the pretext of seeking progress.
Tell me, do you seriously think of people who put in time, effort and money in order to feed, clothe or educate the less privileged as pursuing their DESIRES? Do you think that the scientific curiosity of an Einstein or a Hawking or a C.V. Raman was driven only by the pursuit of individual glory? Do you think it is impossible for an industrialist to be driven by goals other than self-gratification?
The cynical point of view is that no industrialist or politician is driven by anything other than the need for gratifying their desires. Even if it IS true, it does not mean that they CANNOT be driven by other goals or aspirations.
So, yes, progress is not inevitably tied to desire though the reality of the day may be that it IS so tied. Desire is related to gratifying yourself. AND when that gratification can only come from outside, you place your happiness at the mercy of the external world. THAT is a sureshot recipe for sorrow. (Like, to want to DO a good job is not necessarily a desire in this context. To want PRAISE for doing a good job - THAT is a desire which places you at the mercy of others.)
Which neatly segues me into that most popular Bhagavad Gita shloka, which people love to quote but very seldom think of practising, perhaps under the belief that good advice has to be given away and not used yourself: Karmanyeva adhikaraste maa faleshu kadachana - which ends up saying the same thing about doing your duty without bothering your head about what you get out of it.
A desireless existence is not necessarily a purposeless existence. The world IS full of sorrow only because almost everyone believes that desires are the root of all purpose!
No comments:
Post a Comment