We are unconcerned about so many things around, just to have that peace of mind. At the same time, we feel responsible for a few things. We are unconcerned about the children who are struggling to find good education and guidance, but feel responsible for the ones we have given birth to. Slowly, that attitude of non-concern turns into insensitivity. Insensitivity leads to exploitative tendencies. These exploitative tendencies give birth to wars and revolutions.
If we notice carefully, it will be the same set of people who feel excessively responsible towards a few, who are unconcerned about the "others". The reason is quite clear. It is all about our understanding of the self. "Who am I?". If "I" am quite convinced that "I" am limited to the body, I dwell in, "I" would be unconcerned about anybody else except the "give and take" relationships where there is an exchange of attention and efforts. If "I" am quite convinced that "I" am limited to wife and children, "I" would be unconcerned about everybody else. Everybody else is just a tool to make "me" happy. At the same time, "I" feel responsible for "my" family members because they are part of "me". "I" somehow want to make them comfortable and provide all the means of pleasure and comforts. The stronger the sense of "I", the more unconcerned "I" am about the rest of the world.
Can we notice that both "non-concern" and "responsibility" are extensions of the same "ignorance"? The greater the ignorance of our true nature, the stronger the conviction about our responsibilities, and the more we are unconcerned about everything else. Responsibility is a fancy word assigned to "greed" within. The greed to have comforts and pleasures for "self" and a few that "self" has extended to. In fact, "I" feel that extension of "self" to a few people is also a mental story. In fact, through that extension, I am seeking social validation or some intangible benefits in return. I "love" my kids, so they should "respect" me. If they decide to marry against my wishes, "I" will not have any relationship. Children do not listen to "me". Even that extension of "self" to a few is also a mental story, and underneath, reality is quite different.
Was Buddha not responsible when he decided to leave his family? His concern for mankind was far greater than his "greed" to get that trophy of being responsible. Unlike most people, he was not unconcerned about his surroundings. He did not close his eyes to buy peace of mind from the sufferings of life. That's why he wanted a solution for the misery of everybody. That solution was very well available to his family members. Bhagat Singh was not irresponsible towards his family members; rather, he was concerned about everybody's freedom. As awareness grows, a person can't be confined within the four corners of "responsibilities" dictated by society. He grows much above that. Those who are confined to their limited world will never be able to understand and will pass judgments on these people out of their limited awareness. However, whenever there is a crisis within their narrow existence, they rush to these people to seek guidance. It's beyond them to be able to handle that crisis.
Comments