Lately I have been recalling a story that was narrated to me years and years ago. Putting the details aside (which I have mostly forgotten), the story tells of a monkey that sees a fish swim in the ocean, and thinks that it is drowning to death. Without much ado, the monkey goes to ‘rescue’ the fish by taking it out of the water. But alas, seconds later the monkey sees that its action results in the fish being suffocated, and its eventual death. The question then arises, how can this be?
To many of us, the answer is rather obvious. The monkey does not take into account the environment in which the fish has been living, and he acts purely on his own experience. Its failure to recognise that the fish undergoes different experience from his, leads to negative consequence.
At a first glance, the story may sound childish that one may chuckle, and exclaim, “Duh!”. Personally, I feel that the moral of the story to be very profound, and it is often overlooked by many of us. In our day-to-day interaction, I find that many people (excuse my generalisation) project their own experience onto the others, and do not consider that every individual experiences a unique and distinct chain of life events -no one shares an identical life account. This leads them to make a judgment of someone by using their personal life accounts and environment as the criteria without trying to fully understand what experience that person has gone through. On the other hand, they may also do or say something to someone, in a way that is personally good and pleasing to them. However, what is good for us, is not necessarily good for others. As conveyed in the monkey and the fish story, what is good for the monkey is not good for the fish.
How many of us have judged the others without fully knowing the story? Consider two people with different personalities. One spends money freely and cares little about pursuing high-end career, while the other one is very careful with money and is committed to establish oneself through financial security. It is easy to dismiss the former by saying, “S/he is financially careless and has no ambition for the future”, and the latter by saying, “S/he is such a tigh-ass and materialistic, only cares for money.” But if we dwelve into things that are not visible to us, and get to know them better, we may discover that the first person has in fact lived through his/her childhood where the abundance of money has created pain and misery, and s/he develops apathy towards wealth and career. Imagine parents who are finacially and professionally successful, but are never at home to cater the emotional needs of their child. On the other hand, the second person may be born in a financially constrained family, and such experience has made live hard to endure. Imagine a person whose family is poor and the parents are continually arguing for money, and s/he has to work hard to contribute to the survival of the family. One subject matter : money, and two different attitudes that are shaped by two distinct accounts of life. If we put our experiences aside, and get to know a person and his/her history, we will perhaps think to ourselves, “If I had gone through what they did, maybe I would act the same way. Who am I to judge?”. Maybe we will be less judgmental and help them better.
One of the many issues that often get to me, is the issue of modesty. I was born in the East, and spent half of my life in the West. I would like to think that I have a strong feel of what is considered modest in the East (or rather the country that I was born in), and in the West. The subject matter that often finds itself in a conversation is the veil for women. Now I am not here to make arguments whether the veil is mandatory for women or not, nor do I want to engage myself in religious talk (not in this note anyway). I have heard some negative remarks that the veil oppresses the women, and it symbolises women as men’s mere possession. On the other end of the spectrum, I have heard how women who don’t cover up from head to toe are the victims of lust and desires where they are only seen as sexual objects, and immodest.
Really, when it comes to the veil, I can do with or without, and it depends on the environment where I live in (don’t shoot me with any religious chant, please). Anyway, I see that the above remarks regarding the veil are made without truly understanding the different environment where the others lifve. The anti-veil individuals dismiss the merit of the veil because they don’t understand that a veil can serve to protect women from being harassed in different areas of the worlds. They don’t understand that some women can actually feel peaceful and liberating by observing the veil, and they are not ‘oppressed’ in any way possible. On the other hand, those who live in a conservative environment and are accustomed to the veil as the standard of modesty for women, fail to acknowledge that women can still be modest without the veil in other countries. They may not understand that men can still look at women who have their uncovered without any sexual intent.
This process of projecting own experience and judging others without proper understanding, will not do us any favour. We will be less tolerant, say things that hurt each others, and fail unity. It will be indeed good, if sometimes we take the time to properly know each other (over a cup of yummy hot chai latte, or coffee if you need the caffeine kick), instead of analysing someone based on what appears on the surface.
When we see someone being so ‘stingy’, maybe that person has financial difficulty.
When we see someone being not so lovey-dovey with the family, maybe that person has had harsh family relationship.
When we see someone being so ‘closed-up’ and introverted, maybe that person has been lonely or experienced betrayal of trust.
When we see someone being so obsessed with self-image or weight, maybe that person has experienced bullying or heartbreak that is due to an image issue.
When today when we see someone being impolite, maybe that person is just having a bad day, maybe that person is actually a nice person in general.
Of course that is not an excuse to behave negatively, I am just saying that we will never know unless we exercise the benefit of the doubt, and try to understand them better. Who knows, we may actually help them, and become a better person ourselves.
I know I am already rambling as it is, but coming back to the story of the monkey and the fish, I’d like to point out that what makes us happy does not neccessarily make others happy because we have different experiences and different definition of happiness. Some people may obtain happiness from being able to afford luxury and fine things, while others may be just content with living in modesty and use their wealth for charity purposes. Some people enjoy spending their leisure time by reading and studying, while others find their enjoyment by partying, dancing etc. Of course we can say that those who are different from others are ‘missing out’, and try to ‘make them happy’.
A rich person may think s/he is doing a favour by throwing a feast of indulgence and showering expensive gifts for this person who has been living modestly. Will that make the latter happy? Maybe, maybe not. The rich person sees that this is how s/he obtains happiness and joy, but the latter may actually feel miserable ‘cause s/he thinks that indulgence is just a waste of money.
The partying person may think that the homey-person isn’t having fun at all, and drag the homey to parties and clubs. Will that make the homey person happy? Most probably not. S/he may not be able to identify with the world of parties and clubs, and feel alienated.
Parents may think that academic achievement will make their children happy, and force them to enrol into academic subjects that they have no interest in. What if the children are more passionate about the world of theatre, or music, or visual art? They of course will feel miserable for being unable to do what they are interested in.
When we utter things like, “I am only doing it for your own good and happiness”, we need to ponder if the statement actually means, “I am doing it for you based on what will personally make me happy.”, and then consider what their needs and/or wants are, instead of what our needs and/or wants are.
Okay, enough soapboxing for me. Clearly I have too much time on my hand to ramble on such thing. Just a ‘lil thing that has been running through my ‘lil peanut brain. Laksmi’s out.
