I asked three questions to my favourite thinkers and they replied

Q.1 How should I approach an interesting woman?

Ghalib: There is no clarity in your question. It appears that you are idealizing the person from a distance which could be an infatuation or a pure sexual response. Idealization makes you see only what you want or hope to see in a person. There is a verse from the Ghazal no. 33 in my Urdu Diwan that says: ‘Bulbul ke kaarobar par khanda-haaye gul // kaihte hain jisko ishq khalal hai dimaag ka’ (The roses are smiling at the nightingales’ affair, what’s called love is mind’s fever, they would not gainsay). However, it is always astonishing to see how love can strike. Sometimes your eyes meet and the effect is electric and sometimes nothing happens. Therefore, in my poetry, I have defined love again and again, so that a whole collection of couplets may signify the complexity involved. So, approach her thinking that connection is not just about being a nice person, but about the mysterious forces that defy human comprehension.

John O’ Donohue: There is a lovely disarray that comes with the attraction. A person you never knew until recently has invaded your mind; every fibre of your being longs to be closer. Despite the thousands of years of human interaction, your approach begins all anew, as if for the first time, when two people are becoming familiar. What you encounter, recognize or discover depends on the beauty of your approach. Our world full of fast communication and social media seems to have lost all sense of reverence. We seldom use the word anymore. That has resulted in the lack of quality and beauty in our experience.
Reverence is more than the attitude of mind; reverence is also physical- a dignified attention of the body showing the sacred already here. It is not the stiff pious posture which remains frozen and lacks humor and play. Reverence is respecting her privacy and recognizing the sacred zone around her. Reverence is avoiding rushed heart that lacks gentleness and patience. When your actions are full of reverence, everything decides to trust you.

Seneca: It’s a fact that your clock has been triggered. You can neither pause nor put it back. You can neither accelerate nor decelerate time. Your power lies only in misusing it or making use of it. Remind yourself when you go to sleep: ‘you may not wake up,’ and when you wake up: ‘you may not ever sleep again’. If you develop the spirit to match time’s swiftness with your speed in using it, you’ll make a move and talk to her without a second thought what others might think of you. Let’s behave like a traveler who has set out too late and wants to catch up time by speeding, and put in the spurs. Remember your approach should not appear random or absurd to her because if you don’t know to which port you are sailing, no wind would be favourable.

Tolstoy: We were created to long for each other. No matter how much self-control one claims, some desires are hard to overcome. My novel ‘Anna Karenina’ in a way is also a representation and exploration of desires. When Vronsky saw Anna for the first time and noticed the brightness of glance and her smile, Anna didn’t notice anything exceptional about him. However, Anna acknowledges her love for Vronsky in a matter of days, whereas Kitty takes years to accept her feelings for Levin despite the fact she was approached by Levin in the beginning. So, when you approach don’t assume that it is not going to affect her. Always remind yourself that there is only one time that is important — and that is now! It is the most important time because it is the only time when we have any power. The most important person is the one you are with, for no human knows whether he will ever have dealings with anyone else. The most important thing to do is, to do good, because for that purpose alone you were sent into this life.

Q2. What if she rejects/ignores me?

Ghalib: When she loves you that is poetic and when she does not that is poetic too. Couplet from my Ghazal 191 says, ‘Ishq par zor nahin, hai ye wo aatish Ghalb! Ke lagaye na lage, awr bujhae na bane’ (Ghalib, love’s fire, over which there’s no control, it can’t be lit at will nor put out, by trying to do). Love is not just a fancy candlelight dinner or overwhelmingly positive experience. It is something that requires patience, vast amounts of time, and lots of hard work – not least because quite often, the beloved also isn’t clear themselves about what will fulfill them the most. Love hurts because there are times when we must let go of what we’ve loved most. I also said in Ghazal 89: ‘meharbaan ho kar bula lo mujhe, chaho jis waqt, main gaya waqt nahin hun, ke phir aa bhi na sakun.’ (remember to be kind, and call me, whomsoever you wish, I am not time past, you needn’t fear, I can’t come back again).

John O’Donohue: In the Celtic tradition, there is a beautiful understanding of love and friendship. We all feel the pain of exclusion about equally, no matter how sensitive or strong you are. It is the personality trait that influences how a person copes. Celtics believe that often secrets are not revealed in words, they lie concealed in the silence between the words or in the depth of what is unsayable between two people. In many areas of lives, the rich potential of friendship and love remain out of our reach because we push towards ‘connection’ rather than communion. You don’t need to see it as some sort of competition where rejection or ignorance is like losing the game. In addition, if you believe that someone you have emotionally invested in is knowingly, repeatedly, using silence as a mechanism, you need to ask yourself: ‘Is this good enough?’

Seneca: She was anyway not talking to you or interested in you so why bother? Don’t act like mortals in all that you fear, and like immortals in all that you desire. To feel ignored or rejected may not be the fun ride, but why inflict more distress on yourself? If she responds to you kindly you get provoked by her kindness and if she despises you, your pride gets inflamed. Philosophers have often investigated whether it is better to have moderate emotions or none. Men of our school reject them. I would not like to snatch from you any emotion that you wish to have. But withdraw from the slippery slope of emotional love. Don’t risk falling into a condition that is troubled, uncontrolled, enslaved to another and cheap in our own eyes.

Tolstoy: Variables are infinite for her ignorance or rejection but accept that the depth of her soul is closed to you. However, as a thinking man you should understand that if we could more accurately see the inner life of others, they wouldn’t appear to us in a normal cold and one dimensional way. In addition, I find the idea that there is just one person in the world who can effortlessly bring you to the pinnacle of emotional, sexual and spiritual fulfillment, as foolish, as the idea of you being ‘the one’ for someone else. For example, Vronsky’s marriage to Anna was the complete fulfillment of what he had so long desired. But he was not happy. He soon felt that the realization of his long-sought desire gave him only one grain of the mountain of happiness he had anticipated. That realization showed him the eternal error men make by imagining that happiness consists in the fulfillment of their desires.

Q 3. So, am I going to be alone forever?

Ghalib: Another verse from the Ghazal no. 33 says: ‘Sau baar band-e Ishq se azad ham hue// par kya karein, dil hi aduu hai faraagh ka’ (I have escaped time and again, from the bonds of love, what can I do, my heart refuses thein freedom to say).
Instead of distressing about life without a soul mate- I think it’s more beneficial to recognize that it’s highly unlikely that you’ll be alone forever. Marriage and relationships are social customs. I got married at thirteen and my poetry is enough to suggest that you may not share your whole life with just one person and would fall in love again and again.
What makes a poet different from the ordinary lover is what he or she makes out of their emotions. I am talking about anyone who knows how to make sweet melody out of their suffering in the Ghazal 71, ‘Na gul-e nagma hun, na parda-e saaz//mae hun apni shikast ki awaaz,’ (Neither the flowering of song, nor a melody flow, Of the shattering of my selfhood, I am the echo).

John O’ Donohue: It is strange to be here. The mystery never leaves you alone. A world lives within you. Try to engage with it, it can bring you freedom. I have a friend who told me about his battle with homesickness. He got desperately lonely, but instead of avoiding it, he decided to allow the loneliness to have its way. He sat down in the armchair and gave himself authorization to feel as lonely as he wanted. The loneliness poured through him, as soon as he gave that invitation to his soul, He felt like the most abandoned orphaned in the cosmos. He cried and cried. In a way, he was crying for all the loneliness that he had kept hidden. When he left the loneliness flow, let the dam burst within, something shifted in his relation to his own loneliness. So, there is no need for you to be afraid of loneliness. Allow all your worries and anxiety to be transfigured. May you be blessed with good friends! May you learn to be a good friend to yourself!

Seneca: There always seems to us something lacking, and will always seem so. It is the mind that creates anxiety and it is the mind that can relieve you of it. Therefore, joy does not come to anyone except the wise man. It is false when a poet suggests that “everything was settled in calm repose of night,” because only reason can help you to abandon your worries. Fill your life with people who will love you in a myriad of ways. No one can live happily if he only observes himself and turns everything towards his own advantage: you must live for someone else if you want to live for yourself. Those who lie around in a sluggish daze live in their home as if it were a burial
chamber. You might as well inscribe their name as an epitaph on their doorway since they have anticipated their own death. It is not years and days that make sure we have lived enough, but our state of mind. Keep Well!

Tolstoy: No man is an island – we were never meant to be on our own. The longing for the embrace of another person is part of what makes us human. When you have within you a desire to love, nothing could be stronger than that desire, because it is what men live by. The later years of my life should help you to understand that sometimes the worst loneliness of all comes when you’re in a relationship and feel utterly disconnected from your partner. The problem is that once you’ve been seduced by the idea of ‘the one’, it becomes hard to accept that you’d be happier with another one, or just no one.
I know the societal pressure to order your life per social norms but all of this might be wrong for you. Don’t spend your energy to impress people who never really liked you in the first place. Ivan Ilyich lived a life, that was ruled by social demands, by sensual gratification, by materialistic motives, and never by conscience. On his deathbed, he looked back over his life and atoned for its shallowness. His experience in death forces him to the realization that one must strive not for pleasure through self-seeking but for union through human pity and divine love. I want you to see his life as representative of all human potential if only you could wake up to it before it is too late.

Mirza Ghalib- Diwan-e Ghalib (Translation by Sarvat Rehman)
Aijaz Ahmad- Ghazals of Ghalib
John O’Donohue- Anam Cara: A book of Celtic Wisdom
John O’Donohue- Beauty: The Invisible Embrace
Seneca- Selected Letters (translation Elaine Fantham)
Seneca- On the Shortness of Life (Gareth D. Williams)
Leo Tolstoy- Anna Karenina
Leo Tolstoy- The Death of Ivan Ilyich
Leo Tolstoy- Three Questions, What Men Live By

Touch Deprivation

The other day I was reading at the Café and was going through the same page of the book probably for the third time. Maybe the language was too difficult or maybe my heart was not at it. I was aware of a mild headache. That was a kind of headache when you feel some weight on your head. I caressed that part of my head with my hands.
On my left a man explaining a business plan to another. Repeating again and again that poor people remain poor because they do not change their ways. I tried to avoid his irritating talk, but he was loud. On the other side of the glass wall that is on the open terrace of the café, I saw this rich looking couple. They were well dressed with undeniably attractive bodies. Their bodies have the presence of the kind Walt Whitman talks about in his poetry.
While the lemon slices were floating in their colorful drinks, the woman was stroking his hair and face like he is her child. I started observing other people around to see how many are touching each other. The touch I thought has whole philosophy to it. Perhaps those around me not touching each other might be touching each other through words or unable to do so. After all, one can be very specific about who they allow to touch and where. Touching could be a way of understanding each other. It is how we transfer healing warmth from the one body to the another.
I was looking at that couple again. I was thinking that these two must be enjoying closeness to each other. How healing it must be for him to feel her breast, her hair and her face so close to him. Edward Munch would not have created his ‘Madonna’ without experiencing such closeness. I reached to a conclusion that my headache might be out of a deprivation, especially the touch deprivation. I liked the precise term I coined for my sickness. I can borrow money to have coffee here but I cannot borrow a touch.                  
This is where my failure lies?
I carried on with my reading.

On Beauty

<Interesting question asked by friend. I forwarded the same question to my friends and got these responses>


Vinay Ramki (to me): You seem to be loving beauty. I seem to have an opposite opinion I guess. So would love to know more about your perspective.

Beauty, especially physical beauty is one big unfair thing in the world. We have a particular definition of it (most cases it’s being fair color, appropriate size, etc etc) we see that as beauty/sexy(while typing I’m referring to women). It is just how we define, or more appropriately, accept the definition of beauty as. There is an African tribe I guess where pot bellied women are sexy. There’s an other tribe where disfiguring your face in particular ‘cuts’ is beauty.

There are most people who follow this definition and fantasise that beauty. This is extremely unfair on people who mostly don’t fall in that category. Some might not want to fall in that, but nevertheless… Most want to be seen as beautiful, but alas our definition! They don’t fall in that category. It could be for many reasons beyond their control too.

You on the other hand seem to appreciate in a gentle and poetic way, the same beauty. It is beautiful in poetic sense, but isn’t it the the same unfair concept.

So can you give your perspective on this. Many artists also think like you I guess. So knowing why and what you think would help me understand similar (artistic) people.


Indira Krishnamurti Pradhan: In the society we live, our primary scale of value, which is most unfair is in the physical. We are conditioned by factors such as culture, educational background and class and are bombarded daily by the western cultural misogynistic values that emphasize how to remain “young and attractive” for ever. Billions of dollars are generated each year promising the human body a status of “permanent beauty” and also sexuality that are highly valued in western and westernized societies.
Thus our explanation of beauty becomes subjective, when considering beauty and aesthetics. In truth, we all know that the value of an object goes beyond our sensory judgment of what we consider as “beautiful”. It would have to embrace judgment based on emotional and intellectual values of what we are reacting to when we view an object or person by way of beauty.
I would go along with what Aristotle said, which is that it is the experience of the audience that actually determines whether something is art or not. So he does not place importance on the creator’s intention as much as on how the audience reacts to the artwork. It is an absolutely personal decision and conclusion we arrive at when we judge a piece of art.
As far as poetry is concerned, I’d like to quote what Shelley had said: “A poem is the very image of life expressed in its eternal truths.” It is these truths that we are in search of and get sidetracked by externals, which are but a superficial reflection of what lies inside and which we struggle to find. Kant also said: “Whereas the beautiful is limited, the sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the attempt.”
Even the rich and famous Hollywood folks whose survival depends on the value placed on their “beauty and wealth” go through a feeling of emptiness and depression beyond a certain point. There is no way they can find permanent joy in the kind of beauty they are programmed to worship in themselves and others. Just as we see beauty in nature or in its natural form externally, we are also infused with its presence internally. This ensures that we live our inner lives too. Beauty is not stagnant; we are in a sense nomadic and travel from threshold to threshold where we discover new possibilities and avenues of creativity and beauty.
In a true sense, we are constantly searching for a state of wholeness, which is a place where we feel that everything is integrated. And until we find that wholeness and attempt to integrate ourselves with our spiritual aspects, ‘beauty’ can only remains “skin deep” in our eyes.

Terry Dalfrano: Beauty counts not for what it is, but for what it suggests: a dream of perfection. A beautiful woman, picture, poem, song are a sort of utopia of a better world. Formal perfection is the negation of the real world. It might sound unjust for the ugly women and bad poets. But it is precisely because we do not like the real world that we like beautiful things. And when we really come to know the object of our admiration, with all its imperfection, we are disillusioned. This is why love cannot be eternal: the real people, and their artistic products, are not eternal, are not perfect.

Please note: Everyone is invited to express their opinion  on the question asked by my friend.

Urdu poets on mystery, wonder and beauty of woman’s hair

Neend us ki hai, dimaag us ka hai, raatein us ki hain
ye zulfein jiski baazuon par pareshan ho gayin.


Sleep is his, pride/head is his, the nights are his
on whose shoulder your curls became scattered/tangled
– Ghalib


Javaab naama siyaahi ka apni hai vo zulf
kisuu ne hashr ko ham se jo sawaal kiya


The answer for the ink (of our deeds) would be those tresses
if anybody will ask us the question on the day of judgement
– Mir Taqi Mir


Idhar aao tumhari zulf ham aarasta kar dein
jo gesu ham sanwaareinge kabhi barham nahi honge


Come here; let me straighten your troubling hair locks
when I set them right your tresses shall never ever be entangled again
-Kaleem Ajiz


Kya ho gaya hai gesuu-e khamdaar ko tere
aazad kar rahein hain giraftaar ko tere
Ab tu muddaton se hai shab-o-roz ruu-ba-ru
kitne hi din guzar gaye didaar ko tere


What has happen to your curly hair
they are releasing your captive now
It’s been long since we’ve come face to face night and day
many days have passed without any sight of you
– Jaun Elia

Painting by John William Godward


A Dream

They were wandering, holding each other’s hand on the University campus.


They went to the parking to find a personal space, and like any young couple they were enjoying snuggling and cuddling.


He remembered he was gazing at her lips while she was telling him that she likes reading poetry, and is working on a Samuel Huntington’s poem (yes the man from clash of civilization), so he went to Chawri Bazaar to get some books for her. There he saw his father- a teacher who taught him about South Asia- and his dead uncle, talking to each other. Surprisingly they didn’t notice him.


Again they are together, wandering on that road that leads to the boy’s hostel from the University’s Post office. Many gossips echoed from somewhere in his mind about her multiple affairs and past lovers. He only remembers there were multiple voices and he didn’t pay much heed to them.


Suddenly, a contingent of soldiers appeared marching on the same road. One of the soldiers shot them with his gun. The bullets hit them but there were no wounds, or feeling of death. Instead of blood there was a profusion of perfume from their bodies and a mystical fragrance all around.


A woman with too much makeup appeared from behind that soldier’s contingent. She offered them dinner in exchange for the trouble they had been through. She said “it’s a Valentine’s Day party” and they must come. They realized their bodies still had the smell of the fragrance that had emanated from the hit of bullets.


She asked the woman, “What cake is going to be served at the party?”


The woman asked her if she had a suggestion, and she offered a most beautiful name- but suddenly the boy woke from his dream and that name drifted beyond the reach of his memory….

(Photo credit: Stella De Genova)12662553_962802470471530_225040070066017816_n


I am here again after a long time
My instinct brought me to you.
Give me a sign, when these demons will turn into angels?
I feel too tired and old now.
I wish for a day without pain:
When I will wake up with enthusiasm
and sleep satisfied.
I don’t want to be afraid of people’s questions,
their critical analysis on what is I am doing to my life.
I want to praise beautiful things
and be honest in whatever I write.
I want to be a courageous lover,
who loves passionately the woman he likes.
There are so many things I wish to do,
but I am stuck in this darkness
and unable to get out of it.
Why don’t you take care of me God?
Am I not your favorite child?

– 10th Sept 2015

Note- Lately, while going back home, the sound of Azaan moved me and I found myself inside the mosque reading namaaz. This is an edited version of dua part.

Incomplete reflection on the Kuhn’s Structure of the scientific revolution

I was thinking what should I do after reading a book, when I have no one discuss it? So, I thought of writing about it.

In this note I will try to convey what I have learned or experienced after reading the essay, “the structure of scientific revolution” by Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn wrote it in 1962 after he began teaching sciences to non-science students. The book lays out a schematic theory for the evolution of science in general and scientific specialties. It draws upon several famous historical examples, mostly from physics and astronomy, but perhaps more to illustrate Kuhn’s system than to substantiate it. The book divided in various chapters with a post-script added by Kuhn seven years later. (That I am yet to read in order to improvised on this note)

During the early twentieth century, a group of logical positivists, (for example Bertrand Russell and  Ludwig Wittgenstein), rejected all metaphysical doctrines and held that true knowledge comes from human experience alone (correct me if I am wrong!), particularly via its most rigorously controlled form, the scientific method: the accumulation of data under controlled conditions, construction of theories on the basis of the data, and verification of theories by experimentation and observation according to objective standards of logic.  Although subsequent adherents to this school often call themselves as logical empiricist’ and they insisted that theories cannot be really verified, only falsified, the underlying assumption  of them was that the history of science has been the unbroken accumulation of knowledge in an orderly, unified sequence. (I will soon add citation to this)


In the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas S. Kuhn disagrees with the logical positivists almost completely. Although he also believed that scientists aim for an increasingly accurate understanding of nature, he found that community of scientists, such as physicists or biologists, often goes through period of divisive disagreement of theory and the nature of data. The final triumph of one faction of a scientific field over another involves the interactions of people. or in other words most scientists spend their entire careers posing and solving problems in accordance with an establish paradigm, assuming that they have fundamental grasp of how nature behaves. (Each group uses its own paradigm to argue in that paradigm’s defense. for example, Priestley and Lavosier both saw oxygen, but they interpreted their observations differently).

For Kuhn, Science is a social process as well as a knowledge-gathering enterprise. He has given various examples to strengthen his arguments. I am not sharing them to keep the note short.

The key features of his arguments are

  • The idea that sciences relies on paradigms, a term that Kuhn borrowed from linguistics
  • Second was Kuhn’s distinction between normal science and scientific revolutions.
  • Third, Kuhn’s system presents a scientific revolution as phenomena among a community of workers; therefore, it is social.

So, don’t feel bad if you were never good in sciences or in solving those mind-wrecking problems. They are and they were just paradigms. And this also shows us how our education system has been ruined by focusing more on problem solving (May the problem that does not exist at all) rather than critical thinking or questioning.

A science student has no touch with philosophy or social sciences and social science student has no curiosity for sciences. Everything is job oriented. Or better to say, corporate oriented.  Although, the questions that are still with me are about the link between science and technology. How even after rejecting and struggling with many paradigms has not stopped us advancing technologically? There is definitely a link between science and technology.

Kuhn concerns himself with only the pure science, and he specifically addresses the cognitive (or epistemic) function of science. He does not explore science’s ultimate value of truth of its place in human culture. And please note that Kuhn is not underestimating sciences but he is only questioning it.