(Where) Meeting is Parting must be

While watching TV on a Saturday morning, a sudden idea crept into my mind. It is (Where) Meeting is Parting Must Be. This is how human life is. Where there is meeting, there must be parting. Meeting point in human life has its parting point as well. In Hegelian language if Meeting is thesis, then Parting is the inevitable anti-thesis. And the process goes on. Simple examples. Sometimes, while watching a favourite TV programme, we long this programme to continue further so that we can enjoy it but that does not happen. The programme ends in its stipulated time. Another example. When we go to meet somebody, a time comes when we have to say bye. These are some of the simplest examples; I will now proceed to complex examples. Human life is in continuous movement. It cannot remain static. Human being is born, grows up, and dies, whether naturally or unnaturally. It cannot stop this process of nature. Hence, whatever one does in life, I am talking from the point of view of action, it must pass away. Action, the term itself denotes movement. We must do something ‘to do action,’ whether physical, vital or mental. When I am thinking about somebody or something, or when I am writing this column, or when I am tilling the field – all these are actions. And all these actions cannot be permanent. Perhaps here, my argument is similar to that of Buddhist argument of momentariness (Kshanavada). Life is in flux, in continuous flux, and there is nothing permanent, nothing eternal, nothing enduring. If the whole life is in flux, if the life mechanism is in movement, then naturally all things in life, all activities, all meetings, are part of this process of momentariness. They cannot be permanent or eternal. Hence, when I meet a friend on the way to university, I must leave him after moments howsoever engrossing the interaction might be as he must have something to do, as I have to. And the process continues. Usually when a government is formed in a state by a political party, it must be in office for some years, then some other dispensation takes its place. Even in traditional kingdoms ruled by monarchs, the rulers had to cease from the thrones after their death, or old age, or by overthrow. In fact I wanted here to emphasize some aspects of life linked to this central argument of momentariness. My point here is that howsoever precious a thing, a possession, a friendship, or a relationship we value, it must pass away, if not today, then tomorrow, if not tomorrow then day after, if not this year, then after few years. This is the eternal law and no other law can change it, even the supreme science or technology cannot change it. Once we agree or rather once we appreciate this dictum, then there often appears (or will appear) a sense of urgency in our life. We will no longer take a view as the herd takes, rather our approach to life will be that of a spiritual scientist, as that of a Mahatma Gandhi or a Buddha. Gautama realized this at the age of 20, and left his beautiful wife Yshodhara and son Rahul, the position of prince and all wealth a kingdom endowed on him. Later he became Buddha (enlightened). How many of us can really do this? A person who loves his family- wife, children, parents and other relatives- thinks as if things will endure eternally. But that does not really happen. Man behaves as if everything is permanent, but that is not the case. Even so called ‘permanent job’ is not permanent job actually, as one has to retire at the age of superannuation. My point is: Is it possible to take a broader approach to life, an approach by positioning ourselves on the sky, or on a mountain top, and see below towards the life? Is it possible to rise above narrow thinking, and think about the universal, the real, which is really mind boggling as mind often fails to grasp its breadth, than being lost in simple equation of mine and thine, I and you; the life we live is more stuffed with self-attachment, than with real love and sacrifice. Adi Shankara calls this world Maya or illusion and he is right from one point of view. So far we do not comprehend this complex nature of working of things in our life and in the world, we will be submerged in a narrow pond, than in the all flowing, crystal clear river of life. It is like the heaven-sage Narad, who once being curious and fascinated to find and know the human life, turned to an actual man, but later found himself so much submerged in the narrow pond of life that he forgot his sainthood and had to be killed by Vishnu from this bondage. Life is bondage in that sense. It can also be a source of liberation. Once we understand it, it will be easier to free from this bondage. Till we do not understand, we will be in illusion as Shankara says. I did not mean we should denunciate life, and turn into a corner of a cave and lose ourselves in blank meditation. It rather means a life full of activity, full of meaning and responsibility, free from bondage, free from narrowness, and free from submergence in this ‘narrow Naradic pond.’ Once we understand every meeting, means every meeting, howsoever short or long, must end in parting, our look will be changed towards life. A new realization will dawn as we will see everything, our daily activity, daily life, our relations within family and without family, internal as well as external, in a new sense. It will also bring to us that eternal understanding and flow of energy that instead of losing ourselves in trivialities of life, we will find ourselves myriad noble things to do in our life. And in a close analysis we will find that meeting and parting are in fact two faces of the same coin that is life.