So much for my happy ending …
Ok, mid-day venting. My cousin Sunnanah called me in the morning and was really upset about "a boy". Which is fair, all of us get upset about "boys". I think its a part of growing up, and all of our relationships help us to define who we are, and more importantly – who we want to be. I don't, however, think it should take over our lives. In the larger scheme of things – there are SO many more important things to worry about – and I completely subscibe to my Mom's notion of "there is someone made for everyone." Fate. I know, (I KNOW Brandon/Audrey/Sam are sniggering, but its true) that its hard to accept it when things don't go our way. BUT – and this is where stoicism comes in very handy- the only thing we can control is how we feel and how we handle a situation. So, in retrospect, I've spent countless hours worrying about how someone else feels and how I can change the way that they feel and the way that they act. But I couldn't then, and I won't be able to now. I know it sounds all preachy – but Marcus Aurelius had it right – sanity is sacrosant. And sometimes, the only way to stay sane is to accept that there are things that are beyond our control. And there is no point in dwelling on them. Am I leading you to the understanding that there is a greater scheme in the works? No. I think my favourite (THAT IS THE WAY I SPELL IT BRANDON, DEAL WITH IT) quote from The Alchemist is "one hand writes all". Rishi will laugh, because I am constantly "spitting in the face of his religion" – (i eat burgers on Tuesdays, I dont pray enough, I'm incapable of making a roti) – but I think you can separate spirituality and religion. I'd like to think that self-development is an internal journey – and it can exist sans divine intervention. Not that divine intervention is a bad thing – right, I ramble. My point, and my vent – was that happy endings are infinately defined by what constitutes our happiness and where we see our endings – so, for Nanna – trust me, boys come and go – its really a question of how you circumvent the entire process of retrospection. I love you.
This is why I didn’t major in Philosphy
Ok, just a very quick note. I was talking to Sam last night, and she IS a Philosophy major. A coincidental bunch of events (ok, not that coincidental – Isha told me she was reading about Stoicism and said it was very "us", so I downloaded a few articles to prepare for discussions over English tea or whatever), led me read The Meditations and The Discourses. Which led me to read stuff on Epicureanism. Which led me to read stuff by Nietzsche (who was kind of a Nazi? I'm confused) – which, incidentally led me to read stuff about Josef Mengele and Kinsey – which in my opinion was a lot more interesting. Ok, so my biggest question to Sam was about Stoicism – and how much it sounded like everything I had read about in the Geeta (yes Brandon, I read the Geeta, no it didnt burst into flames in my hand, yes – I think its a wonderful, powerful, intense tool for self-discovery). Sam went off on some random tangent about the Romans and how they were not Indian (really! shocking. I need to put my toga away) and about how, in that time – the Stoics were basically offshoots of Plato and Socrates – and how I need to read a lot more before I am qualified to have an argument with her about any of this. The thing is, I wasn't arguing. I'm just really curious as to how two seemingly divergent philosophies that I have never really been exposed to in a juxtapostion were espousing the exact same doctrine. Detatchment, a relinquishing of worldly pleasure and karma. Anyways, no answers there – so I'm going to read more I guess. It just seems so pointless – doesn't everything – religion, philosphy, spiritualism – point to the same thing? I think we, as a race, are way too hell-bent (nopunintended) on defining things to the point that they lose their fluidity. Oh, and did you know that Mengele would inject dye into the eyes of twins he took from concentration camps during the Holocaust? That was an immensely scary article (which I sent to a bunch of you). I don't know – it seems like depravity is the base of all our natures – which is Kantian? Right? Or did Hobbes say that. Sam? And, by way of judicious paraphrasing – is it just me, or did the whole Merovingian bloodline thing just go completely over my head. That's another story. Brandon – stop calling me at 5 in the morning, Aurelie – CALL ME, Karan (miss you) – Neha, last night was fun. And no, there was hardly any tequila in your drink. You're a psychological drinker, its wonderful. Love you guys.
Shaam se aankh mein
Shaam se aankh mein nammi si hai
Aaj phir aap ki kami si hai (I'm feeling the lack of you again today)
Shaam se aankh mein nami si hai
Dafan karr do humme ke sans mille
Nabaj kuch derr se thami si hai
Aaj phir aap ki kammi si hai
Waqt rehta nahin kahi tikk karr (Time doesn't wait for anyone)
Iski aadat bhi aadami si hai (His habits are like those of men)
Iss ki aadat bhi aadami si hai
Aaj phir aap ki kammi si hai
Koi rishta nahin raha phir bhi ek tasvir lajmi si hai
Shaam se aankh mein nammi si hai
Aaj phir aap ki kammi si hai
For Brandon – appeasement
Ok, ok – these are MY 5 favourite (I went to British school, so sue me) songs (in no particular order) -
1. Spoonman – Soundgarden, Like A Stone – Audioslave
2. Shaam Se Aankh Mein – Jagjit (that's right, I said it), Jackson/Hurt – Johnny Cash
3. Bat Country – Avenged Sevenfold (what?!?!), Plush – Stone Temple Pilots
4. Mexico – Incubus, Vermillion 2 – Slipknot
5. All Hail the Heartbreaker – The Spill Canvas
See, I do have "taste" in music.
For Brandon – I think you need to breathe
So Brandon called me at around 4am last night (the concept of "time-difference" is painfully lost on him) and was pretty much hysterical. Well, about as hysterical as Brandon can get – he's not a big talker. But I could tell he was really upset, so I hoisted myself out of bed and told him "it was alright that he had woken me up, whats decimated sleep between friends anyways." Again, sarcasm lost over the scream of dementia. So the issue, the HUGE, "icantwaittilltomorrowmorning" problem was this – Limp Bizkits Nookie has been voted the lamest song of all time. Or of the year. Either way – I was less than impressed and really, really questioning my reasons for NOT turning my phone off at night (Isha, I leave it on for YOU – do you see how I suffer in the same of our friendship?). Yeah, so Nookie is apparently the lamest song of all time. In Brandon's defense (I can't believe I am doing this) – he's been the biggest LB fan for as long as I can remember – and it was pretty much staple to expect to hear Nookie everytime we were in his car, or on his bike. Ok. This is the same kid who looked like he was going to asphyxiate me because I yelled "Freebird!" during a LB concert (that was being televised live in Singapore, please – it was ON TV). Right – so this is why I am tired and a little grouchy today. And why I'm, probably going to trip and fall when we go salsa dancing tonight. Anyways – I would love to put up a list of songs that I think are WAY lamer than Nookie – although, to be fair – thats a pretty horrendous song as well. Love you, Brandon.
Marcus Aurelius – Meditations, Book 2, Epictetus
"Epictetus does not recommend cold and indifferent detachment to other people. He argues that when something serious happens the only thing in an individual's power is his or her attitude towards it. A person can either accept the situation or resent it. Epictetus insists that what frightens or dismays the individual is not external events themselves but his or her attitude and the way events are thought about. It is not things that disturb us but the way their significance is interpreted. This amounts to a call for the individual to stop scaring him or herself with impetuous notion or reactive impressions with the way things are."
Aurelius
The soul of man does violence to itself, first of all, when it becomes an abscess and, as it were, a tumour on the universe, so far as it can. For to be vexed at anything which happens is a separation of ourselves from nature, in some part of which the natures of all other things are contained. In the next place, the soul does violence to itself when it turns away from any man, or even moves towards him with the intention of injuring, such as are the souls of those who are angry. In the third place, the soul does violence to itself when it is overpowered by pleasure or by pain. Fourthly, when it plays a part, and does or says anything insincerely and untruly. Fifthly, when it allows any act of its own and any movement to be without an aim, and does anything thoughtlessly and without considering what it is, it being right that even the smallest things be done with reference to an end; and the end of rational animals is to follow the reason and the law of the most ancient city and polity.
Of human life the time is a point, and the substance is in a flux, and the perception dull, and the composition of the whole body subject to putrefaction, and the soul a whirl, and fortune hard to divine, and fame a thing devoid of judgement. And, to say all in a word, everything which belongs to the body is a stream, and what belongs to the soul is a dream and vapour, and life is a warfare and a stranger's sojourn, and after-fame is oblivion. What then is that which is able to conduct a man? One thing and only one, philosophy. But this consists in keeping the daemon within a man free from violence and unharmed, superior to pains and pleasures, doing nothing without purpose, nor yet falsely and with hypocrisy, not feeling the need of another man's doing or not doing anything; and besides, accepting all that happens, and all that is allotted, as coming from thence, wherever it is, from whence he himself came; and, finally, waiting for death with a cheerful mind, as being nothing else than a dissolution of the elements of which every living being is compounded. But if there is no harm to the elements themselves in each continually changing into another, why should a man have any apprehension about the change and dissolution of all the elements? For it is according to nature, and nothing is evil which is according to nature.
So you mean they can struggle in water?
Rishi and I had a major bonding brother-sister day today. We did the whole Borders/Indochine route, which was really nice. We ended the day by going for a swim – well, it waws much more of a float. Neither of us are "laps" kind of people. So, I'm trying my best to tell him about this (fascinating) documentary I had recently watched about how it was better to give birth to babies in water, because apparently all babies can swim at birth. Wrong person, wrong conversation. He looked at me incredibly condesendingly (clearly Audrey has been spending time with my little brother) and said – so if I threw a baby in a pool, it would swim? I should have said – why would you EVER throw a baby into a pool. But instead I said – no, I think they can kind of make their way through the water, but they can't come to the surface for air. So he bursts out laughing and says – so, essentially, what you're saying is that babies, like most of us, can struggle in water. I guess I deserved that one.
