Saturday, 28 January 2012

A vague thought


**Not applicable to saints and sages




Conflicting thoughts induce conflicts within self. The conflict between the heart and mind is a never ending crusade with any victory or defeat.  Morale and intuition drive heart while intellect and rationale drive the mind. Each treads a path of veracity in its own dimension, but not justified until totality is perceived.

Vulnerability of heart is not heeded by mind, and so is the case with its pragmatic sanction in a vice-versa. Ego plays the referee and that whichever has an upper hand at the moment, will inevitably give place to another.  However, mind and heart buttress each other and definitely need one another for the buildup of man’s personality and character.   

Human emotion is both a cause and cure for this phenomenon. The most challenging arcade of life is to win over his own architect, the lord of his house and material body. Most of the times, man continues to swing between infinities until both heart and mind meet. Nevertheless, they are two asymptotic tracks of life which seem to meet at a distant point, but run parallel.  This paradox is nothing but a game of priorities. A psychological paradox!!



Posted by at

11 comments:

  1. Akhila Kakani28 January 2012 at 19:29

    Very true Himaja! Often it is the battles won within that brings us closer to understanding of self. And isn't the ultimate goal of life to find the balance between the loving heart and the scheming mind?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unknown28 January 2012 at 21:00

    Sure it is...
    Strive for equilibrium :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hika2k93 February 2012 at 06:58

      Din't u know that mind and heart can never be in equilibrium??
      It will always be a compromise between the two..
      For the winning of the mind over heart, needs a strong will..
      STRIVE FOR THAT..

      Delete
  3. uManIdhI28 January 2012 at 23:35

    i believe in either or not! the balance b/w the mind & heart leads to the ultimate agitation. mind is always practical and heart is emotional and morally real. when both work together a human in a state, thus and is just in a state with no dynamism. then is there any other answer rather YES or NO?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown6 February 2012 at 07:04

      Of course, the point is not about them working together..ultimately one of the mind and heart takes its stand depending on the situation. But the agitation is all about the equilibrium at the point of decision(about the issue alone but that does not imply to our entire life). This happens for every new issue!!

      Delete
    2. Hika2k910 February 2012 at 22:27

      When u call it an agitation,, how can it be an equilibrium..???
      Think when u speak..

      Delete
    3. Unknown11 February 2012 at 05:54

      Agitation is to attain equilibrium!! This is just an articulation of a vague thought which struck me..Please refer to the the last paragraph of the article, I believe you could get an understanding of my perception.

      Delete
  4. Hika2k911 February 2012 at 07:25

    I did read..I dont think ur perception matches ur articulation..Be clear in urself..when it is a priority..,how can it be an equilibrium..??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown11 February 2012 at 07:38

      First of all...What is "it"?? How do you relate a priority to equilibrium?? I believe in trying for equilibrium and it is highly difficult for a normal person to achieve it to the fullest, we end up in reaching it to an extent. That is the reason I quoted a note under the header "not applicable to saints and sages". This blog is a mirror of my mind and this was just a thought which I reflected,I haven't yet drawn any conclusion to my article.

      Delete
  5. Hika2k911 February 2012 at 07:57

    "This paradox is nothing but a game of priorities."
    It was something quoted in your article..
    and it is suprising me..that u din know..it is, saints who donot have a WILL and they try for an equilibrium..sad to hear that..

    ReplyDelete
  6. Unknown11 February 2012 at 08:14

    That was quoted referring to the paradox and not the equilibrium. I haven't mentioned equilibrium in the article, I have used the term to acknowledge one of the comments made by my friend. I do not understand what you intend to convey, and I don't think I will ever!! Perceptions need not match. Thank you for taking time to read my blog.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)