Toss of Coin: Stories That Unravel Inter-Relationship Between Almighty, Humans, Animals and Plants.

By Ashok Sharda

Toss of Coin is an anthology of stories intended to reevaluate human relationship with their god, fellow beings, animals, and plants.

Centuries together, people have lived without establishing any kind of real communication. The invariable underlying reason is a conditioned, self-centered mind that closes all doors and windows that lead one to the other. The other in relationship becomes object of subjective convenience. They turn into a replaceable commodity—A is equal to B is equal to C is equal to D, and if D is unavailable can be replaced by C and so on.

In normal course, relationship is a happening guided by three metaphysical laws, epitomized by the toss of coin. People become prey to their own internalized self-hypnotic autosuggestions: He or she has light brown hair and eyes, he or she has confident masculine or feminine strides, and they see the aura. Incidentally, the color of the eyes and hair remain, the big frame and the strides remain, and yet the aura turns into that of an abominable bummer when the law turns friend into foe.

Relations commencing from akinness of vibrations are built on different footing, developed on some different levels, and is everlasting. Such relationships don’t confine to one of umpteen selves but one’s whole being. Unfortunately, humans are fond of nomenclaturing relationships but have failed to traverse the path where they can meet one another. They have failed to realize that a good father only exists when exists a bad father.

Humans, owing to their insensitive, egocentric, and violent character traits have failed to establish any kind of relationship with animals and plants who live around us. In three of the stories, the author emphasizes the need to extend ‘human’ hand in love to win their trust.

These stories are real-life stories—if not in the depiction of the events, in author’s experience—seen not through two normal eyes but on some different dimension personifying the whole experience. His approach to any happening is metaphysical.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Partridge Publishing India
• Release date: May 13, 2019
• ISBN: 9781543705157

Book preview

Copyright © 2019 by Ashok Sharda.

ISBN:                  Softcover                      978-1-5437-0516-4

                            eBook                            978-1-5437-0515-7

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the author except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

Unless otherwise indicated, all scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®). Copyright ©2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked NIV are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved. [Biblica]

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

www.partridgepublishing.com/india

CONTENTS

Toss Of Coin

Disclaimer

Introduction

Acknowledgement

Dedication

Preface

Toss of coin

For Granted Takers

A Friend turned Foe turned Friend

In Search of a larger Samosa

Killing three birds with one stone

The birth of NOTHANKS

A lonely Bull

Mogu died

Living souls

TOSS OF COIN

Toss of Coin is an anthology of stories intended to re-evaluate human relationship with their god, fellow beings, animals and plants.

Centuries together people have lived without establishing any kind of real ‘communication’. The invariable underlying reason is a conditioned-self-centered mind which closes all doors and windows that lead one to the other. The ‘other’ in relationship become object of subjective convenience. They turn into a replaceable ‘commodity’; A is equal to B is equal to C is equal to D; if D is unavailable can be replaced by C and so on.

In normal course, relationship is a ‘happening’ guided by three metaphysical laws, epitomized by the toss of coin. People become prey to their own internalized self hypnotic auto-suggestions: He or she has light brown hair and eyes, he or she has confident masculine or feminine strides and they see the aura. Incidentally, the color of the eyes and hair remain, the big frame and the strides remain, and yet, the aura turns into that of an abominable bummer when the ‘law’ turns friend into foe.

Relations commencing from akin-ness of vibrations are built on different footing, developed on some different levels and is ever lasting. Such relationships don’t confine to one of umpteen selves but one’s whole being.’ Unfortunately, humans are fond of nomenclaturing relationships but have failed to traverse the ‘path’ where they can ‘meet’ one another. They have failed to realize that a good father only exists when exists a ‘bad father.

Humans, owing to their insensitive, ego centric and violent character traits have failed to establish any kind of relationship with animals and plants who lives around us. In three of the stories the author emphasizes the need to extend ‘human’ hand in love to win their trust.

These stories are ‘real’ life stories, if not in the depiction of the events, in author’s experience, seen not through two normal eyes but on some different dimension, personifying the whole experience. His approach to any ‘happening’ is metaphysical.

DISCLAIMER

I construct characters based on the character traits I ear mark to the character. But, at times, I pick up characters from the outside world, mostly when I pick up an episode, though I reconstruct the episode to suit the basic theme of my story as I reconstruct the character, amalgamating him or her with other characters I might have encountered in my life. My approach to anything and everything is metaphysical hence I do my best to look into the essence of people and things rather than what appears on the surface. Essence is the basic substance of all and everything and I stick to the basics.

There’s always a possibility that some of my readers may find his or her resemblance in any of my characters. I can only say that this isn’t unusual because we all entail more or less the same character traits by essence with a difference in degree. Personality wise, which is acquired, please know that we belong to same ‘common belief system’, conditioned by same beliefs.

But I, ashok Sharda, the story teller of these stories categorically deny having used any characters from my external I have known in person.

Neither the author nor the publisher shall be held liable or responsible for any accidental resemblance of any character or events depicted in these stories with any person or events from any one’s life. The author knows no such person or has witnessed no such events in his life.

INTRODUCTION

If I had an introducer, this person would have depicted my image of him or her, claiming it to be me. This, needless to say, wouldn’t match with my image of me. As such, I carry varied images with various persons, many of them contradictory, built and based on intermix of my own or their projections of me, more so, emanating from their own prejudices. I have witnessed friends having a verbal duel disputing my image.

In case I decide to bear the burden of introducing myself here, I know for sure, it will reflect my image that I carry of me, which can be factually incorrect.

Who am I?

I wish to claim- I am my ‘intending self’. But, in the same breath, I would also concede that I am yet to find inner unity despite my constant battle with my multitude of selves, who assume me and speak in first person. I refuse to identify with any of them.

The best course in such a situation would be to leave it to my writings to introduce me. My writings can’t produce a physical image of mine. But they, I am sure, would present an image of a person who thinks and tends to see beyond the realm of the two eyes; will give those interested an idea of who I may be, metaphysically.

A friend once asked me – ‘who am I?’

‘You can only be your intending self’ – I responded.

She understood and ever since then, she is on the path of becoming.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

When I happened to open my eyes, not the normal two, I saw a ‘bad’ leading me to ‘good’. I wondered in dilemma to whom to extend my thanks to? Shall I acknowledge my thanks to my ‘luck’, or the immediate factors guiding me by hand to eventuating ‘good’ or to those factors that initiated ‘bad’ that brought me to good? But, having my eyes opened now, not the normal two, could have I stopped at this juncture, ignoring factors which lead me to ‘bad’ and so on and on, backward?

All and everything in this universe is interconnected hence acknowledging ‘good’ as good or ‘bad’ as bad is a meaningless futile exercise. Incidentally, I have no data’s from the past to evaluate the original cause. One can logically assume a ‘big bang’ but the cause of it shall remain unresolved. As a matter of fact, venturing into past to find the causes of present too is a meaningless futile exercise.

I acknowledge my thanks to no one.

DEDICATION

I dedicate this book to those rarest of the rare beings who have realized the pathless path they traverse to meet the other.

He goes inside the insides of his room.

She goes inside the insides of her room.

There is a path from inside to the inside.

They meet.

PREFACE

The biggest failure of my life is my failure to truly ‘communicate’ with humans, barring probably an animal and, more or less, with an individual or two. I wouldn’t term my interaction with these beings as ‘communication in toto’ as it was confined to, and on certain level but it was honest and devoid of any role playing of first or second order.

The role playing of the fourth order isn’t role playing. It’s more or less commanding your own moods which is crucial in determining one’s action in a given situation. The first of the three is ‘pure drama’ which everyone knows is drama; second is the ‘role playing of a hidden persuader’ we know is role playing yet we become their prey impacted by their role play; role playing of the third order is a role playing to ‘play to keep the commoners in good humor’ or else to ‘play to knock closed doors’.

It’s utterly impossible for any ‘intended being’ to genuinely interact or ‘communicate’ with any ‘commoner’ simply because the proportion of ‘comprehension and acceptance’ is too low in them. The ‘commonality’ of their inherited ‘essence’ (read genetics or dna), followed by reinforcement of ‘common character traits’ by the common belief, keeps their minds shut for any new experience or any realization transcending the commonality. I find such ‘commoners’ all around me. Some of them, incidentally, are rooted deep inside me I find hard to communicate’.

In ancient days, I believe, wizards played role of the third order to keep their metaphysical practices hidden from the commoners not because there was any element of devilish or damnable in their acts and practices but because they ‘knew’ commoners are incapable of any ‘comprehension or acceptance’. As a matter of fact, they did their best to camouflage their ‘acts’ to the extent that they tried to codify ‘knowledge’ in words, symbols and dances, created secret schools they called ‘sacred’, as they desired ‘acquired knowledge’ to survive the onslaught of the ‘commonality’. They ‘knew’ that the ‘truth-seeker’ will somehow search them out and their schools pulled by akinness of certain vibrations and thus will survive ‘knowledge’, from generation to generation. Despite their noble cause and efforts, this ‘knowledge’ is almost lost and those who, with hard work on themselves, have ‘attained’ some of it are lonely souls amidst the crowd, playing their roles of the third order, to keep the ‘commoners’ in good humor.

On the other hand, commoners did their best to impair, deface and distort whatever little and in whatever form ‘knowledge’ reached them. Their common concepts of ‘knowledge’, of ‘almighty’, of ‘creation’, of ‘good and bad’, of what is, of life and death, speak for their ‘comprehension and acceptance’ level. It’s sad. Its sadder and at times despairing because you find utterly impossible to ‘communicate’ with any human Being in true sense of the term.

The role playing of the third order implies that you keep the ‘other’ in the center, because you are dealing with the psychology of a conditioned mind, his changing moods and his ego-centric self. Moods, as we know, aren’t independent of the effect of associated impressions. In fact, ‘moods’ are ever in fluctuation and the cause is the effect of very impression one is charged by in any given space-time-situation. Impressions not only refine energies, they also determine the very charge of the energies, negative or positive.

A self realized person, playing role of the third order, would normally find or create some kind of an affinity with the other he is targeting to communicate; would say a ‘yes’ when he actually intends to say a ‘no’, so as to make the other open a window for him to reach him. If he finds one he shall enter to register his ‘no’. He or she is watchful, active and alert, patience and tolerant, immensely.

No ‘commoner’, I am damn sure, will agree with my postulation, not even reluctantly. Incidentally, I will, neither argue with them nor present my point of view in person for the same reasons that compelled some of the masters of ancient times to role play of the third order. Yet, a couple of them, driven by their sense of worthlessness, decided to ‘communicate’ with the ‘crowd’, probably feeling obligated to discharge their duty as a social being. But they were wise enough to change not only their language- speaking in the phraseology of commoners- but they also produced two ‘sets of teachings’, one, meant exclusively for the ‘truth seekers’, obviously, not in common phraseology and the other for the ‘crowd’, propounding the concept of greater goodness in dualistic terms. ‘Crowd’ understands concepts in dualistic terms alone. This is good; this is bad. They fail to ‘see’ and sense the interconnectivity of the so called good and so called bad.

This is the conclusion I invariably draw when I sit in silence to find the very cause of my sense of disconnection with my surrounding. I wonder if Buddha’s or Jesuses or those who truly attained ‘knowledge’, succeeded in establishing any connection with their people or they lived in hopefulness despite the hopeless state of the ‘commoners’, of reaching their mind, enchanted by universal enchantress, Madame Hope?

Metaphysically, I believe, the true communication can only happen from ‘inside to inside’. This ‘inside to inside’ ‘communication’ is devoid of any role playing because it doesn’t bank on words for ‘communication’.

There is a room inside every room

There are rooms inside the insides of the inside rooms

There are ways from one inside room to the other inside rooms

She goes inside her room

He goes inside the insides of his room

She goes inside the insides of her room

There is a path, from inside to the inside

They meet.

As a matter of fact, words are concepts as words express concept (in other words, concepts are expressed by words). But, here arises an impossible question, staring directly into our faces- who knows to ‘walk in’? And why would one ‘walk in’ when one doesn’t know there’s a path from inside to inside? It’s on this path alone one can ‘meet’ the other, provided, the other too knows of this path and ‘walks in’. It’s asking too much from those who have even failed to identify with a ‘self’, they can proclaim their ‘real self’, who shall intend. Instead, they live their lives in plurality, attuned to their own inner contradictions, ever in conflict between ‘good’ and bad’, ‘liking and disliking’, life and death, without even realizing they live in contradiction.

How can one have any true realization unless one is liberated of words to have direct experience? Liberations from words will tantamount to liberation from the concepts one is prejudiced with. This needs developing one’s sensing without interpreting. Interpretations are not just subject to word experience but more so, of conditioning of mind. It’s a paradoxical state, metaphysically so. A metaphysical demand from those who do not know what to do with their lives, who are ever eager to venture into next or to traverse into dead time to dig graves and bring the dead alive, is too much. These sleeping souls tends to live their yesterdays every day.

My use of ‘sleeping souls’ is part of my role playing of the third order to keep the ‘commoners’ in good humor because- and I say this with conviction- that ‘soul’ is a ‘metaphysical body’ which needs to be ‘grown’ with hard work on one self. It’s not a gift bestowed by Mother Nature. ‘Conscience’ is the seed of the soul. This alone can lead one to inner unity and development of a metaphysical body I call ‘soul’. Those, who, live all their lives in dream world, pursuing the ‘next’, fractured within and in space and time, with a prejudiced conditioned mind guiding their false perceptions doesn’t have this potential.

In dream he was born

In dream he shall die

Dreaming of a

Beautiful life

Failing to have an honest ‘communication’ with people you identify with as ‘my this’ or ‘my that’ is painful. Playing various roles, projecting and maintaining several images with people around you is also painful but a compulsion on the part of a ‘truth-seeker’ for a peaceful co-existence.

Role playing is turning out to become my skin, so much that, at times, I am compelled to play role of not playing a role.

Long ago I wrote a poem depicting these very thoughts of mine. The poem reads like this:

A is not aware     he is A

He believes         he is B

He behaves         like C

C comes to A says

He knows that A is not A but D

A starts behaving like D

D comes to A says

He knows that A is not A but E

A starts behaving like E

E comes says     A is G

G comes says     A is P

P comes says      A is T

A starts behaving like

G and P and T

One fine day

A realizes he is A

And starts behaving like A

This disillusionment of A eludes

B C D E G and P

B comes to A and says

You are not A

And so says C D E G and P

A goes on behaving like A

C D E G and P stops coming to him

Now they go to K

They say

They know

K is not K.

Is it my failure alone or also of those ‘individuals’ who have realized the impossibility of ‘communicating’ with the ‘crowd’? Unfortunately, I have known and met certain ‘individuals’, who instead of keeping their ‘individuals’ intact, let their ‘commoners-within’ to find strength from the combined vibrations emanating from their surrounding, eventually, getting lost amidst the clamorous ‘crowd’, failing to work on attaining inner unity, thus, failing to deal with their loneliness. One cannot live amidst ‘crowd’, without their ‘crowd-within’, getting infected and inflicted by ‘crowd-without’; unless one succeeds in making one’s loneliness one’s companion. My loneliness is my companion, a companion who never complains or feels resentful or offended and is ever present when I need her. I feel sad for such ‘individuals’, despite knowing I do not see any one ‘communicating’ with any one? I see two images, assumed and projected, exchanging words, which reaches no minds. They aren’t capable; they aren’t receptive enough to let other ‘walk in’. This is not only sad but pathetic too.

At times I wonder and I have all the reason- though I can only speculate- to believe that Jesus and Buddha must have died a frustrated death failing to ‘communicate’. It’s a different thing that they maintained a posture giving hopes because they were dealing with the psychology of their audience. How can I forget Jesus almost shouting, time and again – hear those who have ears. Doesn’t this speak of his frustration?

I have written several poems, apparently on the intricacies of communication, of those, I quote just one, a simple poem:

They talked

They kept on talking

He spoke Sanskrit

She spoke Latin

He doesn’t understand Latin

She doesn’t understand Sanskrit

They talked

They kept on talking

While he talked

She too talked

He spoke Sanskrit

She spoke Latin

What he talked is what she talked

What she talked is what he talked

They both talked for years

She in Latin, he in Sanskrit

What he talked is what everybody talked

What she talked is what everybody talked

What everybody talked, they both talked

One day he felt that she is talking too much

She too felt that he is talking too much

He raised his voice

She too raised her voice

He stopped pretending that he was listening

She stopped pretending that she was listening

But, they both talked

He spoke Sanskrit

She spoke Latin

They talked. They kept on talking.

Can any relationship find its footing on mere exchange of words devoid of any ‘communication’?

For years people live together without establishing any kind of real communication. The underlying reason is always a conditioned self-centered mind which makes one ever feel insecure and this sense of insecurity close all the doors and windows that leads one to the other. This is what makes all the relationship superficial and never let the so called two friends or the so-called lovers ‘communicate’ and, sooner than later, the friendship turns into enmity; love turns into dislike if not hate. This is what has convinced me that words are waste if they can’t reach; they never, unless, of course, you make the other receptive by causing affinity. This exercise compels you to say a ‘yes’ when you want to say a ‘no’ so as to make the other person open a window of his or her mind you can try and infuse a ‘no’.’

‘Communication’ simply means that what’s being said reached the person in its essence; the speaker meant it to be. In nut shell, the meaning words are purported to ‘communicate’.

But how can a person who assumes he is B, projects himself as D but considering his character traits, let’s say is C, can communicate with A, who projects himself as P and our ‘C’ takes him to be T? Knowing the other, invariably, emanates from knowing thy self.

There’s an aphorism inscribed on the forecourt in the temple of Delphi, ‘Know Thyself’, which, as its claimed, was further propounded by the great philosopher Socrates, who said- the unexamined life is not worth living.

I would further it by saying- that in the absence of ‘know thyself’- it’s not possible to establish any relationship despite human being a social animal by birth and all its boastful claims of technological evolution.

The problem with this self centered biped, we know as human, is that he talks to project and project him or herself; he complains of others, he find faults in others, he earmarks negative character traits to others, he expresses in judgmental terms of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ rather than speaking in observable traits, with one aim that I am taller than you. Dwarfing others is projection of one’s self; declaration that I am taller than you. They are ever in a battle with the others to prove he is right; he was right.

How can such specie ‘communicate’? How can such specie be in any kind of relationship? How can there exist any ‘relationship’ in the absence of ‘communication’?

Human is fond of nomenclaturing relationships, all kind, using beautiful words but none of them- obviously, barring rare exceptions- has ever found the ‘path’ they can traverse to ‘meet’ the other. Incidentally, living and believing in dualistic terminology, human relationships are seen and defined dualistically. If there’s a good father, there’s also a bad father. They have failed to evaluate that a good father only exists when there exists a ‘bad father.

My failure to ‘communicate’ with those minds I can reach on physical plane is what, I believe, has begotten a writer inside me. These stories are, in a sense, my endeavor to ‘communicate’ with those minds, who would lend me their ears, living or would be living in different spaces and in different physical times, though not wordless. Words are after all a medium of communication but only when it ‘communicates’. I sincerely desire from my readers to sense the underneath meaning of the stories, I have used words and created scenes to tell, which I am presenting here with in this anthology, titled- ‘Toss of Coin’.

Human relationship with his God intrigues me no more; not at least, like it used to trouble. Human inter-relationship and with beings at other levels doesn’t surprise me. My understanding of human psyche, ins and outs of his essence and acquired personality, in the wake of the reinforced norms of the common belief, has neutralized the element of any surprise. Human is who he or she is beyond any real change, despite all their boastful claims.

There was a time when I was fascinated by the whole concept of almighty. But after having read the scriptures of almost all the religions, I started giving serious thoughts to the very image, formed, believed to be and projected by commoners, which isn’t different than image projected by scriptures and myths in circulation. In practice, the totality of the image of almighty, more or less, is like an entity, who sits somewhere ‘up’ in the sky watching every individual with powerful binoculars. He is kind but can be vengeful.

Aborigine’s image of God, historically and logically, is not beyond comprehension in the wake of their geographical limitations and rudimentary understanding of their surroundings, over and above, their locus-standi amidst vagaries of nature. They saw the might of sun and declared it as almighty; they saw the immensity of sky and assumed it to be His abode. In whatever they witnessed ‘might’ or generated fear from, they epitomized as ‘unknown power’, embodiment of some entity they either called God or devil. Same principle was applied to things they found utility in. This turned all the celestial bodies, mountains, oceans, rivers, animals and plants, into embodiment of some divine entity.

Later, the authors who depicted the ‘power’ of these entities summarized them into a He-God, characterizing them with their own character traits. These Gods, contrary to authors scripted words is dualistic in nature. These gods, thus, turned into a man-created-god-created-man-god. Some of aborigine gods still survived, drawing powers from believers. In the absence of faithful, several of these entities died. I have a list of almost two thousand eight hundred names, who has no following in the present times. They have been replaced by one entity, a man-created-god-created-man-god, who, not so incidentally is masculine.

(Incidentally, there isn’t any concept of God in Buddhism. At the same time, Hindu’s have multitude of Gods and Goddesses. This is understandable in the wake of the fact that Hinduism is a way of life, encompassing thousands of tribes rather than an institutionalized religion)

At times I feel like laughing on the whole idea of evolution of this savage we call human, moving around in sleek vehicles, entertaining gold watches and chains, applying aromatic creams and spirits, claiming to be ‘creation par excellence’, still believing in this ‘man-created-god-created-man-god’, ever looking forward for his kindness on give and take basis. They fail to look into the infinity of things, the falsity of colors and forms, into the character traits of father, who must have been fathered eventually by a mother, formless, colorless, creator of all things, including space and time- called ‘nothing. The mother of all things has to be the first cause, concept less, a potential all and everything unto itself.

With these thoughts in my mind, I was tempted to write a story, to do some autopsy into His very character traits. I found the story of departure of Lilith calling His forbidden name and the episode of condemnation of Eve, Adam and the poor reptile, the most intriguing story for my endeavor, which I have titled ‘Toss of Coin’, which eventually became the title of this book, I am presenting herewith.

My story teller had the audacity to not only determine the character traits of the almighty but also put my words- I envisaged Him speaking- into his mouth, when he cursed and kicked out our foremost grandparents out of the Garden of Eden, appointing one of his obedient servant, a Cherub, to keep a close watch - ‘Your life will now be subject to and be determined by chance result of the toss of coin, a definite good or a definite bad.’

Garden of Eden was not Eves or Adams choice. But they were not subject to the toss of coin. Now their life will be determined by the toss of coin having eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, now their life was subject to the end result of toss of coin, indicative of subjective good and subjective bad.

‘Nonplussed they stood, watching the unknown vastness of the wild, outside the eastern gate of the Garden of Eden, from where the Almighty had banished them, once and for ever. The paradise was left behind but not of their own choice. The Garden of Eden was never their choice, nor this wilderness. They never had a choice actually, as there was nothing like choice, but…’ for the outcome of toss of coin.’

Building up almighty’s image by attributing him character traits and words isn’t anything new. Haven’t this been done in scriptures? After all, God is ‘man-created-god-created-man-god. I don’t mind assuming his role. This too is story teller’s prerogative.

My decision to use this as title of my book was first initiated by my fondness for this title. But, in the course of giving final touches to my stories, a thought appeared on the horizon of my skull – does this title represent all the stories I have ear marked for this anthology? Is it suggestive of the basic theme of this book which is to evaluate relationship of human with his god, with other human beings, animals and plants, No- the answer appeared- not entirely, yet this title justifies its applicability on all the stories for reasons I have elaborated below. I realized that the title ‘Toss of Coin’ reflects two of the metaphysical laws in a direct way and one more in an indirect way which have bearing on any relationship, more so, on human to human relationship. These three laws are: The law of cause and effect, the law of accident and the indefatigable law of deviation.

There’s a common belief that toss of coin follows probability principle but probability is based on the outcome. Results do not determine the cause. It’s the other way round. Yes, at hindsight, one can go back and find the whole chain.

Laws are definite hence probability cannot be a law rather it’s a result of two laws. The third, the law of deviation, is a late entrant in the course of development of any happening. ‘Happenings’ are caused by union of two factors into third, causing any ‘accident’, not unlike a ‘toss of coin’. Establishment of any relationship is a happening like any event, which follows a definite developmental path. But, as said, after following a definite developmental course, the ascension suddenly drops. This drop is owing to this indefatigable law of deviation. This law attacks one from inside, which changes the outlook of the person in relationship. Friend turns foe. Good turns bad and so on and on.

One of the stories, part of this anthology, titled- ‘A Friend turned Foe turned Friend’- reflects this phenomenon, rather the doings of this indefatigable law. People become prey to their own internalized ‘self-hypnotic-auto suggestion- this is him, this is him. He has light brown hair and eyes, he has confident manly strides’ and they see that assumed aura. But alas! ‘The color of the eyes and hair remains, the big frame and the manly strides remains, and yet, the aura turns into that of an abominable bummer’. In relationship people become ‘an object of subjective convenience. They ‘become a replaceable ‘commodity’; ‘A is equal to B is equal to C is equal to D; if D is unavailable can be replaced by C and so on. Why differentiate two persons when they are the same; If it’s K or J or A; If it’s she or she or she… All relationships come to a he and a she, both replaceable.’

Beginning of any relationship is not unlike a ‘big bang’ as it is a definite beginning of a new world in the offing. A creation of a private world, a world inside the world we commonly share, in the chaos we live and try to give an order to. This world can neither be created on the foundation of fear nor can it grow using fear as one of the building blocks. This can only grow, if it ever grows on ‘active love’. Mutual respect, affection and the need to create conditions for the other to grow are the basic ingredients of this ‘active love’. The rest depends on the image one forms of the other, depending on their biological and social relationship. If they are man and woman, they ought to be friends, each capable of playing a role of father and mother, brother and sister, son and daughter, and not just lovers. The role playing has to be of the third or fourth order.

‘Pinnacle of all relationships is a relation which commences out of some kind of a spiritual pulling, owing to akin-ness of vibrations. These relations are built on different footing, developed on some different levels and is ever lasting. Such relationship doesn’t confine to one of umpteen selves but one’s whole being. One cares for a person with one’s whole being. Understanding follows. Now other person short coming is to be fought together. They sense. They feel, they understand. They love. They are fathers, they are mothers, they are friends, they are brothers, and they are any relation as the need arises.. They are guides, they are mentors, and they are all in one. They are in a true relationship.’

‘Any relationship that’s born out of intellectual needs and is driven by an urge to provide some meaning to otherwise meaningless life has the potential to survive and flourish selflessly. Any relationship, born out of infatuation, that drives one to the other and the other to the one may be termed as natural but will not last because it doesn’t make them come close on any level other than physical. This naturally inclined drive has the ‘power’ to makes people blind and in blindness they see ‘beauty’ in such relationship in the offing. They utter all kind of untruths to lure the other, ‘love’ being one among them. All the apparatus of their minds is lured by the powerful energy their sexual center generates. Their thoughts, their emotions, their behavior and acts are driven by this energy. Their desires turn into want, supported by willingness, to obtain by hook or by crook. Satisfaction of this urge demands more, fulfills more, and then, the law comes into force, filling one with monotony and boredom. The thoughts generated from sense of monotony and boredom is convincing – I was never in love with this person; we aren’t made for each other; this person is not what I thought the person is. They feel woken up. Infatuation isn’t a person centric urge nor is it based on understanding or love. People engaged in relationship driven by infatuation will return to square one. But alas! They shall never realize despite having gone through this cycle several times.’

I do think of an imageless relationship but in the wake of ‘commonality’, with a degree of variation in the common psyche of the humans, I sincerely doubt if there can ‘happen’ any relationship without an image one identifies with. I doubt, though, I do not wish to erase a possibility. It’s very difficult to give a name to such a relationship as all the terms commonly used in the common belief system are so beaten that they can mean anything, like- thank you, nice, good, beautiful, sorry, pleasure, pain, love, friendship etc.

Any attempt to evaluate or judge such a relationship, however assumed that might be, using yard stick of the common belief system will be a futile exercise. As a matter of fact, commoners will refuse to accept any such relationship which shall not fit into the definitions of relations common belief has pre determined. They will either question – what kind of a relationship you have with the other or else declare it a ‘bad’. A friend is a friend and not a mother, hence who is he or she; a friend or a mother? Common belief system just can’t recognize the beauty of any truth and when they fail to recognize the beauty, they call it ugly. They judge everything in dualistic extremes, if it’s not ‘good’, it has to be ‘bad’.

Relationship demands. The persons at any of the ends may not but the relationship does. It needs ‘food’ for its survival. This ‘food’ is in the form of mutual respect, accommodation, sharing and understanding of self and the other. If these ingredient forms part of any relationship, it may grow despite the law of deviation. Both the persons at the receiving end are capable enough to sustain the onslaught of this law.

One of the stories, titled, ‘For Granted Takers’, reflects the very idea I have elaborated in the above paragraphs - that any relationship build with care and understanding will fall apart in the absence of two way ‘active love’. No relationship can survive if any one of them starts taking the other for granted.

Taking for granted means expecting a person to behave in a particular manner, the manner which suits the person who is taking the other for granted. The person being ‘taken for granted’ is never evaluated in his or her totality; is never given credit for what he or she has done for the person ‘taking for granted’. On the contrary, the granted taker is ever complaining, disappointed in the other, and tends to react negatively if the other behaves in a manner not of his or her liking.

‘I wasn’t expecting this from you. I am disappointed’- I have heard these words, said or unsaid, dumped on me from those who had commenced taking me and my relationship with them for granted. ‘I am sorry’ closes the cause of complain temporarily but doesn’t put a break on complains; does not put the complaining mind at ease. Granted taking continues.

‘I decide and act as I think it right based on my experience and not yours’, the answer that I want to invariably give as a fitting reply could prove to be an undeletable eraser, which would erase what all I have done for him or her, in mutual interest; will fail to keep up my ‘amenable’ image which made the other person to take me for granted.

The person being taken for granted is helpless if he wants to continue with this relationship; if he or she holds inerasable position in the life of the person ‘taking for granted’, then the relationship shall prevails but extraneously. One will talk in Latin, the other in Sanskrit. They will start playing roles of the worst order.

‘I have envisaged examples of inter relationships wherein both the sides are absolute givers, finding themselves at the receiving end of beauty. The real problem starts when one of the receivers not only stops giving but also starts taking the receivables for granted, for which, needless to say, he or she has stopped paying any price. This is the beginning of the rot the relationship is now getting infected with. They will soon start drifting apart……. I do wonder at times, in any inter relationship, as to why one starts taking the other for granted, the one who needs your utmost care, first attention and top priority. This is paradoxical but this is what I see in any relationship that ends up in decay or remains a mere role playing of the worst order.’

Individuals form family; families shape society, and society creates state in its endeavor to put the golden rule in place. Individuals, no doubt, lose certain rights but in return gain certain right to infringe other family member’s boundary. This is how it should have been evolved between all the pillars of society. Unfortunately this didn’t happen. This isn’t happening. Everyone seems inclined to barge into other boundaries. This has turned all relationship into an assumed, misleading and sham, a compulsion engendering from sense of insecurities.

The value system prevalent in human society has direct impact on the inter relationship of human. The proportion of the decay or ascent is directly in