Normally what we focus is just the evolution not the ultimate and absolute change. This is acceptable since absolute change is not visible unless we start for the evolution itself. So, we start with the evolution, however the ultimate goal should be the absolute change that completely transforms what we are trying to change. This applies to both technology and our real life. I am discussing about the real life here, which is more important than the technology.
First consider a very simple example: You are very generous and feed a poor person. We can extend the same example and consider that some organization feeds poor from different countries. In this example, you brought about the change in that poor person. But if you just left up then that person will be hungry in next few hours. So, this is not the absolute change and should not be the ultimate goal of social reformers. Another helping mind could be just for fame: if you want to help continuously and make the same person feel like he/she cannot live without you or you work so that society recognize you as very generous person. Most people and most developed countries as well are helpful in this way. If this is the case for you, then you poor fellow first transform yourself; you are not generous enough to be involved in the absolute change.
Consider another example: We work hard to stop the human trafficking. Of course this is very good social work. But how absolute change makes this is entirely different from what we are doing right now. What we focus is on giving awareness to the possible victims and helping those who are already victim of it. But, are we ever focusing on transforming the people from criminals to protectors of the victims? If we do not go in that direction then we have to continuously support the victims in some way or the other: the crime will not stop.
Social reformation is not easy task; the absolute change is harder than that. We need dedication and most importantly the true helping mind. Having true helping mind is the hardest part. We need to train our mind first and have it fully under our control. What criminals do is not because they want to defame themselves but because the impurities in their mind like greediness, anger, etc. are so strong that they are forced to do such activities. They are themselves the victims of their mental impurities and the first victims of their own deed. We need to protect these victims first if we really want to transform the society. This is what I would like to call the absolute change. If we could bring about such change in even very small part of the society then we are on the right way. Let us consider my first example again. If we could strengthen enough that poor person so that he/she needs no more help from us then that is the absolute change.
112 thoughts on “When a change becomes the absolute change”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Wow! This can be one particular of the most useful blogs We’ve ever arrive across on this subject. Basically Magnificent. I’m also a specialist in this topic therefore I can understand your hard work.
Ashay,
What becomes absolute (in this context) and what remains at the surface depends upon how it affects the society. Your opinion is right; we have to continuously support. What differs is who are the supporters and how the society is really getting changed. When you start the change it obviously has to be for the victims. But if we always remain at this level we reach no where, rather it transforms to a profession where criminals do their job and the supporters too. Why it is absolute: we found a way that the criminals understand they are the victims of their own deeds and teach them the same lesson in a practical way. If we can teach a sufficient mass of people in the society then the society is dominated by this good lesson. I do not say that the lesson itself will remain unpolluted for ever. However, it will remain in effect till it is pure.
@AntiAshaya
You know me, or you would not have spelled my name differently from what I did. Now since you name yourself AntiAshaya (real original, by the way), hear me out. You think it is negative logic to focus on victims rather than perpetrators? Why? Please show me examples where we actually do this, where we support the criminal, not the victim?
I completely agree that you have the right to voice your point of view. Would love it if you had the guts to actually say your name or at the very least, give me a reason. I am open to my idea being shot down, just do not feel great about not knowing why.
I agree with Lekhnath that another approach exists . I just do not understand why that would bring about an absolute change!
negative logic, full of negative logic
Lekhnath,
I have heard a lot of people argue about changing criminals. The focus shifts from the victim to the perpetrator. Do you not think it is essentially the same thing? You have to educate the mass to help turn criminals away from the path they choose, and you have to educate the mass to make sure people do not fall prey to criminals. Irrespective of which way you look at it, the work has to be continual, cannot be an absolute task. Criminals will keep popping up. We need to remain vigilant. It would be great to turn some criminals over and I am all for them getting second chances, but not at the cost or a rearguard against further perpetrators.
raamro dharana.