We make choices almost every moment. Sometimes we choose to listen, while sometimes we choose to close our ears. We listen carefully when somebody is talking sense, while closing our ears to nonsense. We listen to nice music while closing our ears when somebody is honking unnecessarily.
While listening to anything, what is our first reaction? For example, when we listen to honking, what is our first reaction? We may become alert to see whether we have done something wrong, or there is something wrong with the vehicle, and somebody is trying to attract our attention. However, when we are waiting at the red light, and somebody is honking from the back side, we tend to ignore the same. Similarly, in a city like Delhi, there is too much unnecessary honking, and we tend to ignore honking many times. However, on the other hand, when our parents tell us something unpleasant, we may close our ears to the same, which may have long-term consequences. For example, when we do not listen to their advice to get up early in the morning, and end up developing some health issues. When we do not listen to their advice to maintain hygiene, and develop infections. This advice may sound like "noise" to our minds, but may actually be warning signals. Similarly, sometimes the words of some relatives or friends may appear to be quite "sweet" to us, but may be quite harmful.
the
Question arises: how do we decide what to listen to and what to ignore? There is a simple solution to the apparently tough problem. We need to break whatever we listen to into two parts. First, the "context; and then the "message". There is a context in which we make any decision. For example, Arjuna made a decision to fight the battle of Kurukshetra so that the people of Hastinapur could be freed of the greedy ruler Duryodhana. When he reaches the battlefield, he has a different thought that it is not right to fight his own cousins, teachers, and elders. Now, this "convention" of not fighting the family members, teachers, and elders has a different context. The context is that a child may not have enough exposure to life as compared to the elders and teachers. When elders and teachers try to train him for the larger purpose of life, this will be uncomfortable to him, and he may therefore resist. Therefore, a convention developed that we should not fight our own elders, teachers, and family members. There is a presumption that "there is a direct correlation between age and awareness". However, when Arjuna is fighting the battle, he has the company of "Krishna", the consciousness, and therefore the "context" is different, and therefore the "message" of not fighting the elders and teachers is out of context.
There would be so many things categorised as "highly desirable" while so many other things categorised as "least desirable" by society. The choice depends upon the context, and an "Aware" person would always examine the context before rejecting or accepting. For example, many societies promote lavish expenditure in marriage functions. The purpose of such lavish expenditure is "projection" of being rich or resourceful in society to expand business or to make "connections" to get the work done, or to create a "false image". Now, when we go to attend any such function, we will analyse the context and if we have the same wish list, we will be quite interested in finding out ways and means to throw the same parties, else we will close our eyes to that aspect.
When children go to college, they find all types of people. Some would just ignore studies because their purpose was somehow to get college admission and enjoy their life, because their parents had left a huge pile of money for them. Their "context" is different from the "context" of a child coming from a poor family. Many kids would like to have fun, parties, and even drugs. They want to have "fun" at any cost. Their "context" is different from the children who want to live a "fulfilling life". So, these inputs need to be categorised as "noise" and need not be attended to.
However, for that "elimination of noise", one has to be very clear of one's own context. All the parents need to do is have regular discussions with the kids about their purpose in life and how a particular choice is going to support that purpose in life. Unless our decisions are linked to our purpose in life, they will somewhere be "hanging" without an "anchor". In that case, any and everything will attract us. Since we do not know the "context" of our decision, and we are just living the dreams of our parents, we will not be able to eliminate contextually irrelevant noises. If somebody has a very clear "purpose of life" and is making "efforts" to reach there, any input that tries to "change the direction" may be irrelevant; however, any input about the "process to follow" may be open to examination. Moreover, everybody would decide "purpose" based on a certain understanding of life, and we should be open to revisiting that understanding of life.
We have a certain understanding of life, and based on that understanding of life, we make decisions. We can not wait to have a complete understanding of life and then make decisions. Our understanding of life is based on certain experiences and certain assumptions. As we come into contact with people, we get to know different perspectives on life. We continue with our decision as long as these new perspectives do not contradict our fundamental assumptions of life. If there is a contradiction, we examine the "context," and if "context" is also the same, we observe and examine the truth. For example, a student may have a fundamental assumption that "money is the most important thing in life," and may come into contact with people who have lived a great life with little money, and their fundamental assumption of life may change. On the other hand, somebody may just reject such a possibility and move on. What would matter in the process is whether we accept or reject the new possibilities due to fear or after fearless examination of the "context" and the "content".
Comments