Opposite ways of Thinking

Opposite ways of Thinking

1992 6 June 18-19 Opposite ways of Thinking (688) Frederick Langbridge, the English poet, was born in 1849 and died in 1923. One of his couplets reads:

Two men look out through the same bars. One sees the mud, and one the stars.

The same theme has been more exquisitely expressed by a Persian poet in this couplet:

The difference between you and me is one of hearing. You hear the sound of a door shut while I hear the sound of a door open. (Both hear the sound of a door, one takes it to be the sound of a closed door, the other hears the sound of an opened door).

If a bush has thorns, it also has flowers. The same is true of social circumstances. The adverse and the favourable will always exist side by side. But the man who sets his sights on mere appearances is likely to see only what is unfavourable. He is likely to see the thorns, but not the flowers. It takes a man with insight to go beyond appearance, to discover what is inherently favourable in any given situation.

In this world, mud and stars exist side by side. What is important is who sees the former and who sees the latter. Just as the same sound of the door is differently interpreted by a wise man and a foolish man. To the former it is the sound of a door opening, whereas to the latter it is the sound of a door closing.

All such misconceptions originate in the mind. But then the mind itself can rid itself of them. It is just a question of embarking on the right course of thinking.

The truth is that the world itself is a test of intelligence. One who uses his intelligence will win through against all odds, while one who fails to do so can expect nothing but destruction.

A man who crosses the seas in a boat can seldom do so without being lashed by the waves and buffeted by high winds. But if he wants to reach his destination, he has to learn to brave these difficulties. Similarly, the animals of the jungle have to learn to live among thorny shrubs and predatory enemies, for no jungle is without these adverse factors.

The case of the individual in society is very similar. There is no end to the unpleasantness between people because of clashes of interest. There will always be differences between people because of the differences in people. That is a continuing situation and simply has to be lived with.

In such circumstances the only way for a man to lead a successful life is to follow the ‘in spite of’ principle. That is, in spite of all opposition, he must attempt to incline people in his favour; in spite of there being a great deal of unpleasantness in this life, he must learn the secret of harmonious living; in spite of the plots being hatched against him, he must forge ahead with conviction. He must learn that he can nullify all that is negative by being one hundred per cent positive.

In this world man has to reach the flowers despite the thorns. He has to make himself healthy and sturdy despite the presence of innumerable germs. Similarly he should not become depressed in the face of unfavourable circumstances. Neither should he waste time in protests and complaints.

He must learn to cope with things and live with circumstances he cannot change. He must learn to sidestep the stones in his way. He must learn to settle matters by strategy rather than become provoked by antagonism. He must learn to be patient with his enemies, so that they may become the friends of the future.

It would, of course, be a great sacrifice on the part of parents to have their sons admitted to an institution of this kind. But if the tradition of Ibrahim is to be revived, such a sacrifice will be absolutely necessary. Taking their sons there would be for the Hajis professing their faith in the tradition of Ibrahim, like settling them in the then infertile valleys of Arabia (14:37.)