Skip to main content

Selfless Contribution

Human beings have a strong desire to contribute. Almost all of us want to contribute to the lives of our children. We give them the best education and make the best resources available. We contribute to our organizations and communities in different ways. The desire to contribute is intrinsic to human beings because it gives them a purpose in life. 

Some human beings prefer themselves and their "happiness" over such contributions. They would make excuses rather than take up additional responsibilities at the workplace. They would consume the resources of the community disproportionately. They would not mind spoiling the air by burning crackers for their momentary fun. They would not mind playing loud DJs and disturbing others for their momentary entertainment. Some of them would be so selfish that they would not mind sacrificing even their family members for their petty interests.

Generally, we would find that the first category of people are happier in society than the second category of people. Self-centered people set different targets and get a reason to celebrate as and when they achieve the same. Since the targets are defined in terms of tangible objects such as money or positions, it becomes quite easy for these people to measure their success and celebrate the same. On the other hand, the targets of "contributors" are not only intangible but also have a dependency upon "others". For example, the target of contributing to the lives of kids will depend upon the receptivity of the kids. If the kids reject such contributions, the more efforts are put in by the parents and the more frustration will it bring to them. Similarly, if somebody wants to reform society and the society is not ready for the reforms, more efforts are put in and there would be more frustration for such "contributors".

I feel that this has been a constant complaint of the "contributors" that kids do not listen to them the organizations do not accept their views or the communities or societies are reluctant to appreciate their viewpoints. But the "complaints" make the entire subject matter quite fishy. If somebody has the intention of "contributing", why would there be a complaint. If I want to give somebody something and that person denies it, why would I be unhappy? Probably because there was an "intangible expectation" of recognition or gratitude. Or the "contributor" is searching for the meaning of his life in the form of such "contribution" and when it is rejected by the recipient, the "contributor" is at a loss? If a "contributor" is seeking something from the process, how is he a "contributor"? He is just a "seeker" like the second category of people. Just that he is seeking something different. He is seeking intangible rather than tangible.

Human beings are mostly seeking one or the other thing. Some seeking are tangible while some are intangible. Some are seeking money while some seek "Moksha". Some seek their own "happiness" and some seek the "happiness" of their kids. Some seek better positions for themselves, while some seek names for their communities and organizations. There seems to be little difference between seeking a no.1 position for oneself or seeking a no. 1 position for the team college. The only difference is that the "center of ego" is wider when we seek to "contribute". We identify with the person or organization we want to contribute to. Probably "selfless contribution" is not a possibility until there is even a trace of "self". With so many things to hold on to in this world, it is almost impossible for us to let go of these tangible and intangible possessions and to be aware of the true nature of the "self". In the absence of awareness, most contributions in this world are just "self-centered activities". Very rarely people have been able to contribute selflessly and in that case, one just flows without effort. Since there is no effort, there is no frustration. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Weak Minds

 I don't know what Rama would have felt like when he developed Vairagya looking around at the temporariness of life, and all the material objects. He had the blessed company of saints like Vashistha and Vishvamitra who could answer hundreds of his questions with example and their experiences. King Dashratha was spiritually mature and therefore rather than snubbing the Vairagya of Rama, he could request Vashistha and Vishvamitra to answer the questions asked by Rama. When Siddhartha had similar questions in his mind, he had nobody to answer and his father, in fact, tried to keep him away from the questions about life. That is the strategy of probably the entire society today. If you can not answer the question, prove the question itself to be wrong.  That is what happens to anybody having these questions about the purpose of life. The first response he gets from society is that all these questions are a waste of time. In the entire history of humanity, we have not been able to ...

Choice of Happiness

I often wonder as to what is the meaning of equality? Some are born into families that can spend thousands of crore rupees to make their kids happy, and many can not buy enough food for their kids and their kids sleep hungry stomach and still remain happy and grateful. Some travel by private jet while many have to travel in the locals like cattle. Some own many buildings worth thousands of crores while many sleep on the streets. If somebody knows how to manipulate the systems, the sky is the limit in this world. However, all these hold true, if we believe that happiness is a by-product of money. In fact, I see that the reality is quite the contrary. First of all, life is much more than money. There are 12 houses in Astrology representing 12 different dimensions of life. The first house represents health, the second wealth, the third initiatives and younger siblings, the fourth vehicles, properties, and everything that comes as a result of our initiatives, the fifth new direction, and k...

Use of AI to understand the purpose of Life

I was listening to an interesting debate on the following YouTube link that ignited a series of thoughts in my mind: https://youtu.be/o2aAx3wk6dg?si=qLSwKnR0Cp4TyLPC It is interesting to imagine a world where we can get almost everything done with just a command right from driving a car to flying a plane, doing the homework to making presentations for the meeting, taking care of the plants to taking care of the parents, getting the food cooked to get the surgeries done.  After listening to the discussions, I was quite amazed at the idea of delegating the decision-making to the AI and investing our time in exploration. Decisions about whatever is in the domain of known may be taken by the AI in the future and human beings may be busy exploring new possibilities.  However, how will AI make the decisions? Suppose, during the Ramayana times, AI was fully developed. How Kaikeyi would have taken the decision? I believe for AI or anybody to make a decision, the desired goal has to be...