The thin [RED] line
There is a thin line between love and hate, caring and letting go, listening and being apathetic… the just-right balance between black and white, and that which is difficult to walk on – like a rope balancing act, but has its rewards. The line of indifference.
The opposite of love is not hate; it’s indifference. Indifference, to me, is the epitome of evil. ~Elie Wiesel
Love will find a way, Indifference will find an excuse. ~ Unknown
The worst sin towards our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them; that’s the essence of inhumanity. ~ George Bernard Shaw
The heart withers not from the storms of life, but from the indifference of others. ~ Unknown
Yeah right.
While I do respect these known and unknown writers who see “indifference” as a cardinal sin, I completely disagree with them on these points. And to prove it, let’s just take some examples.
The Buddha
At the age of 29, according to Buddha’s biography, Siddhartha left his palace to meet his subjects. Despite his father’s efforts to hide from him the sick, aged and suffering, Siddhartha was said to have seen an old man. When his charioteer Channa explained to him that all people grew old, the prince went on further trips beyond the palace. On these he encountered a man, a decaying corpse, and an ascetic. These depressed him, and he initially strove to overcome ageing, sickness, and death by living the life of an ascetic.
He had responsibilities towards his wife, son, parents. But he just left everything in search of his own selfish goal. The philosopher and thinker, Osho, in fact goes on to suggest that Buddha was the most selfish person ever!
So the bottom-line is that Buddha was selfish. We can argue on whether the goal he (supposedly) attained was real or imagined, the fact will remain that in light of his personal interest of attaining enlightenment, he left everything and pursued his goal single minded. He was just indifferent.
Ayn Rand – Howard Roark, John Galt, The Virtue of Selfishness, Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, Anthem…
The works of Ayn Rand need no exposition. Her fictional heroes have forwarded the ideas of Objectivistic thought. The speech of Howard Roark in the courtroom, indeed defines individual action as the sole means of attaining an individual objective. The very title of Atlas Shrugged says it – When society, laws, people rebel as a group against individualistic thought and happiness, that is the sole objective of John Galt, he just “shrugs” and leaves. He is indifferent.
On the other hand we have Peter Keating who has everything but isn’t happy. He wants to set everything right for everyone. He can’t let go of the past, cannot accept the future, cares about his societal image, and will do almost anything to please everyone around him. He is the antithesis of indifference.
Why couldn’t he convince himself? He had everything he’d ever wanted. He had wanted superiority–and for the last year he had been the undisputed leader of his profession. He had wanted fame–and he had five thick albums of clippings. He had wanted wealth–and he had enough to insure luxury for the rest of his life. He had everything anyone ever wanted. How many people struggled and suffered to achieve what he had achieved? How many dreamed and bled and died for this, without reaching it? “Peter Keating is the luckiest fellow on earth.” How often had he heard that?
The pursuit of HappYness – Chris Gardener
Christopher Gardner: Hey. Don’t ever let somebody tell you… You can’t do something. Not even me. All right?
Christopher : All right.
Christopher Gardner : You got a dream… You gotta protect it. People can’t do somethin’ themselves, they wanna tell you you can’t do it. If you want somethin’, go get it. Period.
Simply put – just be indifferent to people who come in way of your goals. Keep your eyes on the goal and that’s it.
Arjuna
Hailed as the greatest archer of all times, a disciple of Guru Dronacharya in the epic Mahabharata.
Guru Dronacharya decided to test his students in their skill of archery. He hung a wooden bird from the branch of a tree and then summoned his students. He asked the first one to aim for the bird’s eye but not shoot just yet. He then asked the student what the student could see. The student replied that he could see the garden, the tree, flowers, etc. Drona asked him to step aside and not shoot. He repeated the same process with a few other students. When it was Arjuna’s turn, Arjuna told his Guru that the only thing he could see was the bird’s eye. This satisfied the Guru and he allowed Arjuna to shoot the bird. The lesson here is the power of focus.
Arjuna could only see the bird’s eye. He was indifferent to his surroundings.
This 24 line poem,(which i read when i was 14, and still remember by heart), has been translated into many many languages. The well-known Indian historian and writer Khushwant Singh claims that Kipling’s IF is “the essence of the message of The Gita in English.”. The text Singh refers to is the Bhagavad Gita, the ancient Indian scripture. When the poem was published, it was hung on office walls, and bedrooms alike. Soldiers recited the poem when going to war and school children referred to it as a code of conduct.
And yet, in one word, Kipling preaches indifference towards victory, indifference towards defeat, indifference towards “doubting people”, indifference to the company of kings and impoverished alike. Just plain indifference.
Parallel is often drawn between this poem and Invictus by William Ernest Henley. Which ends with a chilling ” I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my Soul”. Indifference towards life. Focus towards life. So different, and yet thinly balanced.
And then there is modern research – Assholes finish first, Living with Indifference, Ignore Everybody and many many more.
There is a pattern here.
A spiritual leader who is hailed as God was indifferent to his responsibilities for his family. A thought provoking objectivist portrays the Hero as indifferent, while a successful anti-hero as unhappy. A brokerage firm CEO, a millionaire and a philanthropist teaches his son to be indifferent towards people who discourage him. A sublime archer (real or imaginary) who lived thousands of years ago, is indifferent towards his surroundings, as it improves his focus.
So why is indifference bad?
There comes a point in everything when we experience it for the last time.
The thing is that we need to realise that it really is the “last time”. You have done your best to get something, change someone, but things are just not moving. There is a point beyond which investing resources, time, money, energy in something that is not going to budge is just useless. So what do you do? Become indifferent and change focus. Indifference makes you focus on the future, not cry over spilled milk. There have been times in my own life when people told me to trust them to make things right, both from a professional and a personal perspective. And what turned out to be was things far from “right”.
What is an ideal retaliation?
There are many people in the world who are worse than parasites. I have known some personally. They suck on your blood not for survival, but for fun. So what is the ideal response to such people’s behaviour? Answer – Indifference. Gandhi was able to start the “Non Cooperation Movement” which was pivotal in the Indian Independence struggle. The policy was simple – indifference.
I think indifference is just a simple and the most profound responses to negative actions. So if someone willingly tries to screw something up in your life, just be indifferent to the person. Things get sorted eventually. You improve your skill set, have a lot of fun, while these people are just wasting their time giving you “ideas” to screw your life up.
Two types of people, really.
There are two types of people – people of action and people of words. There is no right and wrong, just two different mentalities. People of words have all the words in the dictionary to justify their doings, and how what they are doing is correct and why YOU are wrong. Anyone who ever paused to say “What if…” eventually got nothing done. People of action are the types listed in examples above – after a certain point they become indifferent and carry on with their lives, invest in their future and carve out a happy living for themselves.
The whole science of Economics is based on the problem of limited resources. (And before you start… ‘if economics could explain everything…’, let me remind you that Economics is “The study of human behaviour, in its historical context”, and that makes it a branch of psychology, rather than business and mathematics.) Limited time, limited money, limited life. And in listening to everyone you end up like the father, son and the donkey who lost the donkey trying to please everyone. The Panchatantra story does make the man realise in the end that he would be better if he did what he think was best and let people think what they will.
“I shall have to sell that donkey of ours,” said a miller to his son. “I can not afford to keep him through the winter. I will take him to town this very morning to see if I can find a buyer. You may go with me.” In a little while the miller, his son, and the donkey were on their way to town.
They had not gone far when they met some girls going to a party. They were talking and laughing as they went along. One of them said, “Look at that man and boy driving a donkey. One of them surely might ride.”
The miller heard what they said, and quickly made his you mount the donkey, while he walked along at its side.
After a while they came to a group of old men who were talking very earnestly. “There,” said one, “I was just saying that boys and girls have no respect for the aged. You see it is true in this case. See that boy riding while his old father has to walk.”
“Get down, my son,” said his father, “and I will ride.” So they went on.
They next met some women coming from town. “Why!” they cried, “your poor little boy is nearly tired out. How can you ride and make him walk?” So the miller made his son ride on the donkey behind him.
They were now in town. A man coming down the street called to the miller, “Why do you make your donkey carry such a load? You can carry him better than he can carry you.”
At this the miller and his son got off the donkey. They tied the donkey’s legs together, turned him over on his back; and began to carry him.
A crowd soon gathered to see the strange sight. As they were crossing a bridge the donkey became frightened at the hooting of the crowd. He broke loose, fell into the river, and was drowned.
The miller was angry and ashamed. He said, “There! I have tried to please everybody and have only made a fool of myself. After this I shall do as I think best and let people say what they will.”
Of course the man in question will have to bear the consequences of “doing what he thinks is right”. And that is life. We “do” stuff to make things work for ourselves, not to please everyone else around us. But again, that’s the point. If you just do things to make life work for you, you are happy (no doubt), but lose social image. And so as a corollary, if you do try to please everyone, you become a social hero, and end up being perceived as “happy” and “successful” on the outside, while being empty and hollow on the inside.
After much experience and introspection I have found out that I am a man of decision, not of words. Which means that “Let’s do it” doesn’t have any meaning till its done. Which means that I gel-well with people who would “Just Do It” rather than those trying to hyper-analyse everything and everyone under the sun. Which means that I am attracted, off late, to people who say “F*&* it! Let’s get it done!” rather than those who would go “…I think, he thinks, you think, they think, so I say…”. And its a thin red line I am walking on. I am not claiming to be anywhere near the examples above, just trying to see what they saw, just trying to experience what they did. Coz, after all, who wants to live forever?!?!
A delicate line of numbness, with a one minded goal in sight. The thin red line of indifference.