It is strange that we often do not have the time or the inclination for important questions in life - it is probably a reflex reaction of not wanting to deal with uncomfortable issues - which, while important, are perhaps not urgent. However, I believe that I should reflect on the name of the current URL of this blog - freewillanddestiny.blogspot.com - before proceeding to publish other posts. It emerged from the issues that I was grappling with at the time I started the blog - Do we have a freewill? Or is it all destined? Viewing "Forrest Gump" around the same time was instructive - the opening and closing shots in the film capture a feather in the breeze (now you know how my identity on the blogosphere has emerged). In the film, Forrest goes with the flow, lacking the faintest idea of what he wants to do in life, BUT doing his best that he can. Jenny, his love, apart from having a clear idea on what she wants to achieve (a singing career) , goes on in life to seek and find "harmony." Jenny clearly shows freewill but gets exhausted (some could say that she failed, but I don't want to get judgemental here); Forrest has spectacular successes and it looks like it is all destined. Or is it? Are destiny and freewill mutually exclusive?
I beg to differ. Think of the time when you were asked to address a gathering. When is it easier to talk - when you are given a brief or when you are free to choose the topic? I would bet that, more often than not, we would go with the first option. It is very difficult to operate without a structure in place. Think of all the great achievers in any field - poets, scientists, classical musicians - they were those who built on an inherited structure and transcended it later on. Even those who did not built on such a structure, like Srinivasa Ramanujam, became famous only after adhering to, and then, surpassing the structure. Destiny is probably indeed like that structure - one needs to acclimatise oneself to it so as to overcome it and let freewill kick in. And how do we do it?
Probably the best way to do it is to do it the way our scriptures have ordained and Forrest demonstrates - without attachment. As I was commenting on a blog, it is very difficult to understand the nature of attachment. Almost 15 years back, I remember asking a Swamiji from Ramakrishna Mission as to how it is possible not to be attached. He said, "Please be attached to your work, who is not asking you to? But only, immerse yourself in it so much that your attachment gets dissolved." I did not understand it fully then. While I may not be practicing it, today, I feel I understand what he said better - "Be immersed in your work so much that you are not bothered/ do not have time to worry about the results." Incidentally, Bhagavad-Gita doesn't tell us not to have attachment with the work; it tells us not to have attachment with the fruits of our actions. The journey is many a time more interesting and important than the destination. Thus, one need not probably be overawed by questions regarding freewill and destiny - one just needs to go about doing his work with sincerity and commitment. May be, just may be, a majority of people have already figured this out and hence do not engage with the debate, freewill vs. destiny
© Author. All rights reserved.
I beg to differ. Think of the time when you were asked to address a gathering. When is it easier to talk - when you are given a brief or when you are free to choose the topic? I would bet that, more often than not, we would go with the first option. It is very difficult to operate without a structure in place. Think of all the great achievers in any field - poets, scientists, classical musicians - they were those who built on an inherited structure and transcended it later on. Even those who did not built on such a structure, like Srinivasa Ramanujam, became famous only after adhering to, and then, surpassing the structure. Destiny is probably indeed like that structure - one needs to acclimatise oneself to it so as to overcome it and let freewill kick in. And how do we do it?
Probably the best way to do it is to do it the way our scriptures have ordained and Forrest demonstrates - without attachment. As I was commenting on a blog, it is very difficult to understand the nature of attachment. Almost 15 years back, I remember asking a Swamiji from Ramakrishna Mission as to how it is possible not to be attached. He said, "Please be attached to your work, who is not asking you to? But only, immerse yourself in it so much that your attachment gets dissolved." I did not understand it fully then. While I may not be practicing it, today, I feel I understand what he said better - "Be immersed in your work so much that you are not bothered/ do not have time to worry about the results." Incidentally, Bhagavad-Gita doesn't tell us not to have attachment with the work; it tells us not to have attachment with the fruits of our actions. The journey is many a time more interesting and important than the destination. Thus, one need not probably be overawed by questions regarding freewill and destiny - one just needs to go about doing his work with sincerity and commitment. May be, just may be, a majority of people have already figured this out and hence do not engage with the debate, freewill vs. destiny
© Author. All rights reserved.
1 comment:
i do agree.. free will and Destiny are NOT mutually exclusive. In fact, one may pretty much mean the other. Free Will includes the right to believe in your own destiny. When Forrest was running after that feather, he was exercising free will too.
Post a Comment