Today I saw Deepa Mehta's "Water".
It portrays the life of widows in the early 19th century in India. Widows were denied even the most simple pleasures of life and forced into a life of piety for their "sins" that brought upon them such a fate. The could not touch other people at times, they could not laugh aloud, they were forced to keep their head's shaved and wear only white. They could not even eat what they wanted. They were forced to live a life of so called "sanctity" so that they could achieve a better "life" in future lives :)
There is one old widow "Bua" whose desires and dreams are so childlike, like someone whose life just stopped years ago. Her only memory in her entire life is of her wedding and all the different sweets that she got to eat. White, round rosogulla's, piping hot Gulab jamun's, jalebi's ... And her only desire is eat a sweet. Daily she craves for a ladoo, so childlike is the the fevour, intensity and simplicity of her desire ....
At her deathbed the only thing she can think of is eating a ladoo. Not God, not heaven, not even a better life in future.
No society with all it's "age-old wisdom" can force this fate on anyone. Like Vivekananda says existence goes "from truth to higher truth". Even if God himself came down in all his infinite beauty and grace it is of no use to her; she only wants a ladoo.
it is true that she craved for laddo in wakefull state and it might be possible that she craved or even experienced laddo in her dreams
but did she crave for laddo in the state of deep sleep?
i would like to know your comment why couldn't she? and/or why didn't she?
may be she is craving for the effect of eating laddoo to her psyche rather than eating laddoo itself?
may be she is craving for peace/tranquility/ or even GOD that can be experienced by eating laddoo and not laddoo itself.
how can anyone seperate GOD from laddoo.
GOD can be (and is) the laddoo too.
WHY DID the director of the movie make a movie that is sad rather than make a movie that is fun?
May be it is just a movie for the director, not anything like sad or fun?
may be it is the same for GOD, JUST EXPERIENCES,NOT GOOD NOT BAD,NOT FUN NOT SAD.
May be it is not the 'age-old wisdom' that imposed this situation to Bua,may be the lack of it?
may be the distortion of it?
is it correct to just attribute this to "age-old wisdom" as is said.
"truth" "higher truth" and "existence".The meaning is dependent not only on the context of the speech but also on the people who were listening to him then.
to understand vivekanada, YOU SHOULD BE him. not anything more not anything less.
The reader judges her craving for laddo - it seems that she was simply at one with it.
As the society of the time judged Bua in life, so they continued to judge her approaching death.
And now, by reading this account, I judge the society that judged Bua. I need to increase my effort to merely witness and grow aware of stories such as this and learn more about what lies beyond the words.
very well said Derek,
i agree with you.
"I need to increase my effort to merely witness and grow aware of stories such as this and learn more about what lies ..."
my favourite words in that are "grow aware" and "what lies beyond the words"
It's true that we can transcend desires without indulging in them. It is also true that continuous indulgence will not lead us anywhere. But this awareness cannot be forced on someone. It should come from within ....
One of the fundamental laws of creation :) is individual freedom. Even God does not enforce ! Each soul has the right to choose what it wants. Ofcourse there is reaction to every action but still there is always a choice. Which might make the game more interesting, more complex, run longer, but still, we have a choice.
That's why no human has a right to deny the personal freedom of another especially if it not harmful to society in general ..
I guess it's not always in Black and White, entire judiciary systems attempt, not so successfully, to address these things but I hope I've conveyed my idea ...
On a side note,
This movie makes no sense.
It is irrelevant in today's society. When such things no longer happen, what was the point in making a movie about it NOW?
Deepa Mehta wanted to make something controversial, something that people would see with disbelief: just to make money and make herself famous.
And, how can anyone transcend their desires without indulging in them? To transcend a particular desire, we should indulge more than usual in it.
If socially irrelevent movies should not be made then most of bollywood movies go down the drain ;) How relevent is it to go dancing in the rain or single handedly beating up 100 guys :D
All action movies, science fiction most drama everything would go :) The film industry would collapse :D
"And, how can anyone transcend their desires without indulging in them? To transcend a particular desire, we should indulge more than usual in it. " By just seeing that what we all want in joy and contentment and finding a more lasting source of joy, contentment and more importantly stillness. It just has to happen. It will !
The movies that you talked about are purely for entertainment. If a movie looks for educating and informing people about something, it better be relevant sine only a sick mind can look for entertainment value in movies like 'Water'.
you like God so much that you
impart all "good" to him and all "bad" or 'evil" things to humans..............
if you observe animal world you will understand the real truth of nature.....it is not good/or bad/or evil. it is just IS.
once you said krishna will and can remove all evil by sankalpa alone.
what was he doing when Bua was treated so badly....................
is it not his will that caused it?
I know it is not so.but do you know it. if you know please tell me.
to understand nature is accepting it as it is.......
the same goes with God/self.
there is never anything called individual freedom in nature since there is no individual seperate from the whole.
if i have to choose one chocolate from 5 brands of chocolate.....
do you say it as freedom to choose?
it is not just freedom to choose as it appears at first glance. since i am limited/compelled to choose from ONLY 5 brands of chocolate.
when the total choices i can have are limited (where i dont have a choice to increase the number or go beyond the given choices) the question of freedom to choose doesnot exist.
given a situation where I have to choose 1 chocolate from 5 is not freedom or compulsion.
the situation is Simply IS.
but i like the way you defend GOD.
"defend" may not be the word for you. as you would present it as "understanding" GOD.
i appreciate your way of LOVING GOD.
krishna himself said "aarthudu (one who is suffering),arthakamudu (one who has desires),gignasudu(one who wants to know), gnani (one who knows self/god) are the four kinds of devoutees to god/self. and I(krishna) and gnani are not seperate,they are the one and the same"
once you said "after zillions of years all humans will realize self"
what happens then "will they all be forced to KNOW"
i have a doubt "will avadooth or anagha or Derek or srinivas or syam be humans then?"
is there a guarentee that i/you will be a human in my/your next life? (if there is one)
i mean how can you say after zillions of years from now when all humans attain self realization, i/you will be born as humans and not as animals or for than matter as the 'so called nonliving things".........
please write to me.
interesting article. swami vivekananda was so wise. check out www.gitananda.org for more quotes by vivekananda.
Post a Comment