Life is never a simpleton of either/or form as would the popular belief wills it. They would say that one has to take side and may even appeal to the fact that one has to choose to be as no choice is spurious whilst one has to be active. Let us observe further: Crude materialists always desires and live within the realm of the multiform desires which in a way is seen as a way forward whilst to be there is seen as not an option. It follows therefore that one may be either ‘forced’ to take sides or is seen as a pariah but from a transcendental perspective, it is a most healthy position to adopt or else falls within the realm of the temporal where things changes at all times and where there is always a fluidity.
Kabir has already proclaimed in his that one may not be illimited by the norm of what they would set in that a boundary is set and one is per forced to take sides. The Indian poet observed… ‘Neither am I righteous nor unrighteous; Neither am I an ascetic nor a sensualist’ to clearly makes the point in life there is no need to be one or the other as expounded further…. ‘… and more to the point… ‘Neither am I distinctly isolated from anything …Nor am I completely with anything’
The prudent is one who may not easily succumb to desires of taking sides of one or the other. Life is not simply an option of here or there. Communist or capitalist. Hatred and love. Or war and peace. It may be neither that nor the other. ‘Neti Neti ‘has cried the Upanishad Seers. Comprehension and wisdom are not so much as making others be like oneself but more about laying bare what is there in the manner of witnessing the whole scenery. In a game of cricket, one may easily support one or the other team. Moreover, only one who is non committed may appreciate what is unfolded really. The game of soccer perhaps more appropriately makes the point. Most of the time the fan may only view from one perspective and verily is cornered in seeing things through the eyes of being a fanatic to the team one supports and so whatever the other team may do somehow may never be appreciated.
Likewise, life throws to us some challenges in that the call is to really rise above and beyond the confines of the limitations of taking sides. It is far too easy to espouse a view, any particular view and makes this one’s saliency of being in that it becomes a veil which one carries about. With time it becomes a baggage which keeps one from witnessing what is as it unfolds since one is blinded with the format of either/or. It is safer to ‘box’ others and as one does so that it is possible to target the other easily.
Where it is not possible to do so; one is not certain how to proceed or what to do. The crude always wishes to label so that attacks may emerge forthwith. Where a mystery is placed, the other may not be able to infiltrate the line of control which is beyond the normal strategy which the crude is always used to. Not certain of how to handle this, the other gives up with arguments that one should be in the realm of Either/Or; since life is seen as an act of either this or the other. Not to do is indeed an act of denying one and the other more positively. Again, a poet may say verily it is not quite a question of being positive or negative but clearly seeing the frailties and or limitations of both the proponent and its opposites …. Something if one takes a view would be condemned to argue for and or against.
On this view to be sure life is more than a set form of beliefs that one adopts and abide by rightly or wrongly based on perceptions as to how one should be and the adherents would apply and try living as per the ‘ism’ which they have espoused or framed so that a certain world view may prevail. Needless to say, that whilst doing so there may emerge lots of contradictions and or limitations that the seeker of or other way to be fail to appreciate from the other party as one is contented with a particular view or approach. Life is set or re-ordained to be as their intentions are and they would spend a lifetime trying to broadly live within that realm and or ignore others not of their kind. Such are the ways of those who are in a way not really with a vision to see but more of a reactionary type who would try seeing at all times to perceive things based on a particular view point … indeed their own viewpoint.
Try and argue against them and you are seen as the enemy full stop. And from which would also emerge, dislike if not quite hatred or verbal if not quite physical violence but sufficient to cause some others to both justify both their anger and or acts of criminality as condemned by society overall.
The ‘misfit’ of neither for or against may be ridiculed by one or the other if not both parties yet it is a sane way to be in that at least one is subject to prejudices or one or the other ways whilst it is another option to be, a way which goes and above divisions as framed by one or the other section or fraction. It is a factionless to be, indeed a gentler way which seeks to unite rather than divide. It is about a visionary way to be and not being caught up in the realms of the either/or dilemma.
Verily a sage to be which attempts to override the constraints of one or the other format. In many ways , it may be that which the visionary may see as a healing and or seeking to create a balance and that of bringing together others away from a hostile climate which merely separate others and seek to reaching out to all so as a more healthy unifying way may unfold where each and everyone sees the other as a comrade. Sure the question remains is this at all possible?