Human nature, and "change"...

"Change"... Inevitable; relentless; a fundamental part of probably the most accurate oxymoron of all time, which is the fact that "change is the only constant". It is the way of the world, the way of life itself. We see it all around, experience it on a daily basis, yet are unable to come to terms with it when it happens, even after so many opportunities to. It is (arguably) the single most debilitating yet unavoidable phenomenon we will ever encounter.

I have one particular thought that seems to be contradictory to the general opinion, though; that people never truly change. Of course, "change" can mean many things, and (obviously!) as biological beings we "change" (dare I say "decay?") over time, so I am not arguing with what is clearly a fact. What I do, however, disagree with is the idea that people change "inherently"; which is to say I do not believe that a person can become someone that they were/are not. As easy as that would be to believe, especially given the many instances in life that would be so much easier to understand if we WERE to so believe, I do not subscribe to this theory. Therefore, these are my thought on this topic with regards possibly the most integral part of human nature, which would be relationships; I have given special prominence to "the relationship", which is that which we look to form with our "life partner", if things were to be ideal...

My belief is that the concept of "change" is merely a mis-diagnosis for "development" or "maturity". When you say "He/she has changed", what you actually mean is that "I did not understand at the time I met him/her that he/she was the person I now know him/her to be"; The person in question has not "changed", where the person was of a certain nature when you met them but has become a completely different person with the passing of time; but rather it is you who has not understood that person for who he/she was initially. This is a combination of various problems....

Firstly, people tend to prematurely assume they "know" another person; they assume that a few months, or years, is enough to know the PERSON. So I think the first problem is this assumption. This is what leads to many of us believing someone has "changed", because we assume we knew the person in the first place! What is more likely is that we simply did not understand the person for who they were, and time has given us that understanding, which does not tally with our initial perception. So my advice first up would be to understand how long, and how much effort it takes to truly understand who a person is inherently. If more people understood this, they would see that they are merely getting to know the real person much later than they initially thought they had.

On a personal note, might I add that one of the FIRST questions we must answer in our lives is "Who am I??". Experience has taught me that, the fact that people give so little thought to this question, leads to their perception of themselves misleading others (like myself), by crippling our intuition with blatant statements that were ill thought out. As a person, before embarking on an important relationship, one must know oneself; only then will there be a possibility of connecting with another, as that will allow the other person to see if their instinctive analysis tallies with your interpretation of yourself. Because people like myself who are aware of who we are, have the potential to understand you completely, but chances are we will expect you to know yourself; so much so that we will take your word on who you are over our own instinctive analysis of you, because we couldn't POSSIBLY know you better than you know yourself, right?? So, before you tell someone something that they are likely to believe, in spite of their better judgement, make sure you know yourself enough to make such a blatant statement.

The second problem is that we misjudge a stage of development of a person  as that which defines them. It is astounding how inaccurate age is in judging a person's maturity, as it is completely possible for the general "norm" to be completely wrong. So what we must understand is that the most salient question is whether, whatever happens, we are willing to make that person a priority in our lives based on our knowledge of the person inherently. Notice I say "knowledge", as opposed to "assumption" or who we "think" a person is. When you know, you know; there is no other way to explain it. There will be no doubt in your mind, that you completely understand who another person is.

Thirdly, and possibly most importantly, people need to wrap their heads around the concept of "Love". Many people believe that the love one feels towards one's partner, is different to that which one feels towards the people with whom one forms "platonic" relationships, such as those with family and possibly one or two close friends; I completely disagree. While I concede that sometimes the emotions are so completely wrapped together that it is difficult to decipher one from the other, "Love" should not be confused with "romantic attraction" (which I feel is the best way to explain it). If you fall "in love" with a person, that means that the romantic attraction you feel towards that person has led to you loving that person, which is to say that you have completely and irrevocably set aside your self to care for that person. Its EXACTLY the same emotion that you would feel towards your family, and those few friends that you let yourself get so close to, only with the addition of romantic attraction. So the only difference, is that circumstance does not dictate a "limit" to how attached you can become to that person. It does not mean that it is a different kind of love that you feel, merely that it accompanies a non-platonic attraction which is not present otherwise.

Let me add yet another personal experience here; "romantic attraction" is not as important as it is thought to be. Its sad that people refer to it as "love", because it has so little to do with a successful relationship; where as "love' is the key; the fundamental ingredient. The non-platonic feelings may come and go, and (through personal experience I know that) it is more choice than uncontrollable; and it is not an essential ingredient to love another person. If you've lived your life believing that you need to be romantically attracted to another person in order to be able to love that person, you'd be wrong. The thing is, anything short of true love will fade and die with time, sometimes due to no particular fault of anyone; it may be rekindled, or not, as circumstance and subconscious necessity dictate. True love, however, will never die a natural death; because only futility or permanent separation can destroy it, which means it can only be "killed" by circumstance or conscious action on the part of the subject of it. So the concept of "falling out of love" is possibly the most common misconception to have become a cliche. So there you have it, further evidence that "change" is not human nature, rather circumstance surrounding one's life at a particular time.

So, as I said at the beginning of the post, I do not believe that people "change"; neither do I believe that one can "fall out of love". Human nature is understandable, if only we pay close enough attention to it; and it does not accommodate true "change"..

Wants, needs, hope and happiness of a Spoon....

What are words but a method of expression? A means for communicating ideas; thoughts; emotions?? It stands to reason therefore, that this would mean each word would have a slightly different definition for each person in his/her use. Let me tell you what my interpretation/definition of these words are, in order for the idea put forward to make best sense...

I would say "want" is a desire without necessity, which is to say to want something is to desire something that you do not need. Please note that I use the lack of necessity as a means to distinguish "want" from "need", as they are two very closely linked, and on occasion interchangeable words. I'm sure you've figured out by now that "need" is necessity, as in something that is needed. "Hope" to me, would embody a (at times futile) wish for certain things to be a certain way. And finally, the most elusive of all words, in my opinion- "Happiness". What is happiness to me?? Well, this is where the definition of the other three words come in, because it is difficult to explain happiness without the use of the words I have defined... So let me start thus....

If you've read my posts, you would have realised that I am a somewhat intense, emotional and cryptic person (to put it lightly). You would also have realised that I took badly the end of my solitary romantic relationship. It took me a long time to figure things out afterwards, and to be honest I think its more by chance than anything that I stumbled across the explanation that adequately dispelled the misconceptions I had. But it did not change the fact that I WAS happy, and now I'm not. So, having (recently!) understood that I possibly MADE myself believe that there was something special, or having mistaken it to be so, I tried to figure out what the difference was. Which is when I realised what my relationship with that person embodied; which showed me what "happiness" is to me. I doubt that I can adequately define "Happiness" as I did the others, but I will (within the course of this post) TRY.

I now see that what my relationship embodied to me (or so I thought) was two things; being "needed", and being understood. I now realise that I was something between "wanted" and "needed", which I guess I did not let myself see. I already knew that understanding was something I mistakenly expected, yet its funny how many things one decides to ignore, if only to "hope" for something that may never be. As soon as it ended, I (obviously!) jumped to the conclusion that I had missed the one opportunity I had in life for happiness, but now I see I was merely blinding myself with the lesser "evil" if you will; that I had not found what I thought I had. I guess there was some solace in the belief that there HAD BEEN a chance (even if there isn't anymore) of happiness, than going back to wondering if there ever WILL be a chance of it. Yet here I am...

So my definition of "happiness" has become clear to me. The only thing my happiness would require is to be "needed". I now also realise that being understood (at least in part) is merely a necessity towards being needed. Why I say understanding is necessary, is because how can anyone know they need someone if they cannot understand the person enough to see that the person is that "someone" they need?? Its like seeing a lawn-mower when you're looking for something to cut the grass with, but not knowing what it is, or what its used for!! This is why I sometimes wish I could be satisfied with being "wanted"; you can become someone that another person would "want". But to be needed, you would have to be unique, in a way that you satisfy someone's "need" in its entirety. By need here I mean that thing we all are looking for, even though we don't quite know how to explain it; I'm by no means talking about being"everything" to someone, as that would be absurd.

This brings me to my "hope" in the pursuit of "happiness"; I "hope" to be understood someday, by someone who "needs" me. This comes with the crushing realisation that time and time again, I have always been misunderstood, and there is nothing I can offer, which someone else cannot. Which is to say what am I, but a spoon at a table?? A mere implement, whose necessity is circumstantial; a circumstance, which will change with time. Once the meal is done, the requirement for the spoon is no longer there. It would be fine if the spoon was the only one of its kind, and the regular need for meals would mean that it would have a purpose; but to be one in a pile of cutlery? What would happen when it gets to the bottom of the pile? When there are so many spoons on top, what would be the requirement for one particular spoon as opposed to another??

At the moment there are four people at the table, and the spoon finds happiness in being passed around when each of those four people need to eat. But this happiness is slightly dented by the knowledge that none of these people are likely to remain at the table, and that the meal will end; at which point chances are that this particular spoon will end at the bottom of the pile sooner or later, to be replaced by a quantity of different spoons. Possibly the most difficult parting for the spoon will be the one person who brought the spoon to the table, for that person will only leave the table after her last meal. The spoon already sees its use dwindling as the meals of two people draw to an end, and if the third person will return to this table is left to be seen. Try as it may, it can only suppress the impending loss through "hope" that things will not be so. Yet what shall be, is a question of the future.. Till then, the spoon continues to be useful...

Buddhism, and a perspective on Death...

There are certain times in life where you re-evaluate and try to find meaning in this existence. This is not so much the practical thing to do, as it is more a reaction to circumstance. So, by way of introduction, suffice it to to say that this is one such time (I refrain from explaining further in respect of another's privacy, for reasons that I'd rather not try to explain). I also say at the outset that this is merely my view, and anyone is free to disagree as they please; what I do not want is a psychoanalysis of what is to come, because its a personal perspective. If you agree and feel there is something positive in what is said, you are free to take whatever this has to offer. If you do not, please respect my wishes not to merit opinion, and forget you read this.

I'm not entirely sure I can be said to be of a particular religious persuasion. What I WILL say, though, is that Buddhism or the teachings of Lord Buddha (I say Lord here as a mark of respect for one who I feel has understood Life) is the one philosophy I agree with. You will note that I say "agree" here instead of "believe", because that is what it is; I agree with how he saw things. What my understanding of the concept and teachings of Lord Buddha is that it is an analysis of what IS, rather than the REASON for the way things are. In essence, his teachings embody understanding of our surroundings in every sense of the word, without trying to find a MEANING to existence. Therefore, the very statement "I believe in Buddhism" is a clear indication that the concept has not been understood. I am by no means criticizing Buddhists who think so, merely observing a misunderstanding. "Belief" means acceptance with the lack of proof, and the perceived requirement of proof itself is indicative of a misunderstanding. Lord Buddha advocated UNDERSTANDING, not BELIEF. And this he taught through awareness, which is the analysis of things as they are; as in present tense. There is nothing to BELIEVE, but rather to UNDERSTAND and BE AWARE of. That is why Buddhism is not a religion, but a philosophy. True, belief in his teachings will lead to a better life, which in turn will lead to progression towards the truth; however, the problem lies in the fact that belief is trying to gain understanding through another's perspective. My view is that Lord Buddha understood this eventuality as well, which is why he used simple examples to illustrate, and went a step further to state what he saw as correct. But the true principle unfortunately eludes most of us.

Here is my view of Life (which, I will admit, has stemmed from the teachings of Lord Buddha, but which at some point deviated and became my own personal experience). Life is inexplicable, in the sense I cannot explain what Life is to you. I can only know what Life means to ME, as life itself is a personal and solitary journey. So to understand Life, one must understand it for oneself. By "understand", I do not by any means imply that there is a PURPOSE. On the contrary, there is no purpose to life. There is, though, a reason. And the reason is (to me) the capacity to "feel". Feeling is an inexplicable thing, though at times one can make another understand that feeling through the inducement of similar thought. The reason for feeling is in turn, the attachments we form. Attachment comes in many ways and forms, be it material attachment to physical items, to attachments we form with our family and friends. The key, I believe, is the understanding of the futility of such attachments; that there is no REASON for attachment in terms of one's existence, and that attachments are made to be broken. Once one can truly comprehend the meaning of this, the necessity to form attachments ceases to exist. This in turn leads to one's "being" having no more reason to continue in the endless cycle of Life, which in turn leads to the conclusion of one's existence. This, I believe is what Lord Buddha termed "Nirvana", and which I believe Christians call "Heaven", and so on...

And now to the all important question; I'm sure you are asking where in this cycle do I fit? Even as you ask, I'm sure you have come to a conclusion as to where you think I believe myself to fit, which I'm sure you have already concluded is going to be wrong. I shall not comment on this, but rather just tell you where I think I fit; I would fit in the category of knowing what I NEED to understand, but still not being able to comprehend it. I have yet to understand the true futility of attachment, as I still feel that that is my "purpose". I have come to terms, to some extent, with the finite nature of attachment, but only as a means of dealing with the inevitable end to it. I still cannot avoid attachment, as I still cannot comprehend the unnecessary nature of it, to not feel the need to form it. So that is where I think I fit. I will leave it at that.

And finally, the main reason that sparked this post- the all important end to a phase in the cycle of Life. This is what we call "Death". Many cultures, religions and philosophies attempt to season us to this impending end, yet the concept of attachment and the lack of understanding is yet to let us open our eyes. I write as one who is well aware, for all his apparent understanding, that he is among the blind. But Life is an effective, albeit harsh, teacher and it has led to my contemplation of the subject often. It is my understanding that life is merely a phase in the journey towards the conclusion of our individual existence. I don't agree with the concept of "hell" or at least in the concept of "regression" on that journey. I merely understand that there is action and reaction within the phase of life, and that is what we call "Karma and Effect". It does not stretch from one life to the next, apart from deciding to what degree one progresses towards the conclusion of one's existence. Once we experience and understand something, it cannot be undone; which means that our actions in the phase of life is either a step forward, or us standing still. It is true that if you intentionally cause harm to another, the imbalance created will be corrected by harm coming our way, but that is it; nothing lost,nothing gained. In short, creatin a negative impact on another's existence is an exercise in futility.

So where does all this lead? Well, my final thoughts (to which all this was background), is that our conscious existence and attachments are limited to each phase in our journey, a phase which we call "Life". We form attachments, we let ourselves be controlled by our emotions, we learn... In short, we live. Death is merely another beginning to another existence, which means that which we had to offer and that which we had to learn in that particular phase is completed. Once the lesson is learnt, and those lessons we have brought with us have been taught, we move on. To another existence, to another lesson, to another class. It is for those of us who are left, in that phase where the attachment was formed, to come to terms with the void created, to learn the lessons we have yet to learn, and to teach the lessons we came to teach; It is those of us, to struggle to come to terms with the fact that Death is but a beginning for the person departed. The comprehension in itself is an personal experience, which cannot be shouldered by another (believe me, I have been there, wishing this wasn't so). My only hope is that this may be some sort of comfort to anyone who has had to go through this, by way of helping them understand; and I hope that I will also be among those capable of seeing things in this light when the inevitable happens.

Finally, this post is dedicated to all those who have lost someone near and dear to them, in whichever way that may be. Just remember, you are not alone.............