“I don’t have”
We humans have a general tendency that we pay more attention to things that we do not have. If most of us analyze the thoughts that arise in our minds, then we could realize one-third of our thoughts revolve around the “no”.
I have “no” money; I have “no” time, my children/ parents “do not” understand me; there is “no” honesty in the world, my health is “not” so good, food is “not” fine today; today my mood is “not” good, etc. etc.
This “no” has a specific character. It brings many more “no’s” with it. On the other hand this diverted our mind from what we already have.
Example 1
If you are a student. When your exams came, you realized that for some reasons you could not study. Only 50% of your syllabus is covered by you so far. Now there is not enough time for the remaining 50% to read.
If you repeatedly think about the 50% who could not be read, what will happen? “No” will remain, there will be no change in it. You will also lose confidence in panic for your examination.
But if you remember again and again how much have you already learned. Then 50% of what you have read will be revised again and again. your confidence will boost up. Maybe you pass the exam because of this 50% of the syllabus you have learned.
Example 2
The current lock down crisis is showing two categories of people.
The one who thinks they are “not” allowed to go outside, they are “not” allowed to do their job and earn money, they are “not” allowed to meet their friends etc., etc. they started there lockdown period with this attitude. Even with the end of lockdown nothing changed for them. Their “no” is still with them.
But on the other hand there are people who thought they “have” time, they “can” spend their time with family, they “can” learn a lot of new thing online or using internet.
They have many achievements to cheer for when the lock down is over. Many people read their favourite books; Many have written a lot; Many people have learned to do a lot of work online. Many people started learning online and creating many new things.
Nothing happened to the people who has started thinking they “don’t have” but the person who thought “what they have” really has a lot of things on the end of lockdown.
Example 3
I find it very interesting to the comparison of the lives of the three characters of the Mahabharata Epic. Because the life of these three makes very clear deference of “what I have” and “what I don’t have” kind of thinking process.
The first character is Karna. The warrior and generous person like Karna are rarely found in history. But he became a tragic hero in history though he deserve to be a hero.
The reason was his social status. His Kshatriya mother did not accept him. The parents who adopted him belonged to a caste “sut” which was considered as shudra. So, he had treated as a socially deprived class i.e. shudra. Karna himself believed this reason. How right he was to believe in this can be compared to two other characters of his time.
The first character to be compare was Krishna himself. He also was from a “Yadav” caste which was considered as the third varna. He too came from a royal family, but his childhood was spent in the house of an ordinary village chief. He had spent his childhood as a normal cow-boy. Even by the time, Krishna killed Kansa, he had neither formal education nor any training of war or any other kind.
The third character was Romharshan Sut. He too originated in the Sut caste like Karna.
At the social level, these three were almost as similar footage. (of course, Krishna had some better social status comparison to Karn and Romharshan) But their thinking fetched a different fate for them.
Karn could not bear the insult by Draupadi who forbade him to participate in a competition, because he was born in lower varna. He was so distraught from this humiliation that he accepted the kingdom of “Ang” which Duryodhna gave him in generosity. Though Karna had the strength to establish a kingdom for himself. Despite this, he accepted kingship given by Duryodhana.
He was strong enough to get victory on the battlefield but weak enough to bear humiliation by a woman for being from a lower caste. And think about his course of action calmly.
Karna always had the feeling that the honor or achievement he deserved could not be achieved simply because he is born in a lower caste. The sense of “not being” of his upper-caste was so deep in him, that he could not take advantage of the “being” a warrior and virtuous person. Karna had the strength to prove these qualities.
Though it was not an easy task to prove, even though it was not impossible. Gwala/yadav was somewhat above the social level of Karna, but it comes after the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas in the varna order. The descent of Krishna was also not very significant.
Krishna’s opponents like Shishupala, Jayadratha etc. used to taunt him several times for his lower Kula. But never did Krishna take these stanzas seriously and allowed this to diminish his self-reliance. He never got any malice towards the social order or varna-system of the society.
Once Kaurwas humiliated Krishna’s elder brother Balrama for not being socially equal to them. And denied his marriage proposal for his nice to Duryodhna’s daughter. Though they both were in love.
But in Balaram, this humiliation did not bring pity. Rather his might appeared. Frightened, Duryodhana married the two.
These few examples show that Krishna should also get taunts for his kula. However, he never let it become a hindrance.
Even after having the power to lift the Govardhan hill at his fingertips, he felt no shame or hesitation in running away from the battlefield and become “Ranchod”. Because sometimes retreat or bear insult is also necessary for long term victory. Perhaps this is not what Karna could understand.
Let’s assume that Krishna was God, so Karna cannot be compared to him. So another example is of another “Sutputra” Romharshan. If the duty of the Kshatriyas (as Karna was doing) for the Shudra varna was forbidden, then the reading of the religious texts allotted to the Brahmin was also not permitted.
however, Romharshan has been perhaps the most successful Indian narrator of religious texts. Not only this, but the Brahmins of the society also gave him the acceptance as of “Brahmin”. He found this wide respect and status of “Brahmin” without asking, without fighting.
He acquired this qualification due to his knowledge and storytelling talent. This is probably the nature of society. Initially, it may seem like a hindrance, but if you have achieved the desired qualifications, then this society becomes a fan of you. All you need is some patience.
It is clear that Karna focused his thought on what he “did not have”. Whereas people like Krishna and Romharshan thought what “they had.”
We also do the same in our lives. We tend to think more about what we do not have. And the law of nature is that we get what we think.