Acceptance vs. Striving

These days I often find myself seeing human issues in the basic framework of acceptance vs. striving - should one accept something external as it is or should one strive aggressively to change it?

I was reminded of this by talking to Hulesh Sahu this week. Hulesh is a student of the Fall 2008 Indore batch. When Hulesh joined PROTON, he was one of the two students I remember who appeared to be most overwhelmed by the business school experience. (The other one quit in the first week.) I remember prodding Hulesh gently in class to say something, anything, to get into the flow of conversation, even as I wasn't sure if I was doing the right thing by singling him out. He was simply unable to participate, tongue-tied in his nervousness. He had grown up in a 500-person village, studied in a Hindi-medium school, and the class appeared to be too much for him.

Today, less than two years later, he is fairly articulate and thinks very smartly on his feet - a good catch for any employer. While a few other much more gifted students may have expended energy in identifying faults in our environment at PROTON, Hulesh embraced the system and worked single-mindedly on improving himself. And, interestingly, this week I was there asking him for advice on how we can improve the system!

The human emotion of calm acceptance of the external environment is precious and frees up a lot of energy. However, if you don't try to improve things around you now, you might have cause for regret later. Hence the dilemma, even for a thinking person.

Traditionally, Indians are a rather accepting people. Many of us live in terrible conditions without a murmur of protest. In fact, the dirt-poor Indian extraordinarily manages to preserve a semblance of elegance and grace. I am reminded of a couple of lines from a poem describing a rickshaw-puller, "To call him stoic would bestow on him too much dignity / And yet there's rhythm in his rise and fall and he knows it".

Perhaps this calm acceptance is because so much of Indian philosophy stresses that you should look within yourself for shortcomings to fix rather than criticize the world around you. India is the birthplace of Gautam Buddh and Vardhman Mahavir and countless other great personages who made this idea the cornerstone of their teachings.

Yet arrayed against this is perhaps the most rousing call to action over inaction - the Bhagvad Gita. "Karmanyevaadhikaar astey / Ma phaleshu kadachan / Ma karm phal hetu bhu / Ma te sangato akarmani !" ("You can control your efforts / But you can't control at all what they result in / So your efforts must not be for the fruit / And yet you should not embrace inaction!") It's the "Ma te sangato akarmani" which distinguishes this from the accepting or passive nature of much of Indian religious and spiritual thought.

Another interesting angle is provided by the Tao Te Ching, the classic Chinese text. One sentence from the English translation is stuck in my mind: "The Master doesn't DO, he IS." The context appears to say - act, but don't be activated by the action, the action should just flow from who you are. To me this appears as the most brilliant synthesis.

Each situation is different. But I think I would like to teach my son Ekagra to be able to look at his own self critically while also being constructively critical of the world around him.