Showing posts with label dünya hayatı. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dünya hayatı. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Busyness vs Leisure


Somewhere around the end of the 20th century, busyness became not just a way of life but a badge of honor. And life, sociologists say, became an exhausting everydayathon. People now tell pollsters that they’re too busy to register to vote, too busy to date, to make friends outside the office, to take a vacation, to sleep, to have sex. As for multitasking, one 2012 survey found that 38 million Americans shop on their smartphones while sitting on the toilet. And another found that the compulsion to multitask was making us as stupid as if we were stoned.
Burnett, a communications professor at North Dakota State University, has studied a trove of holiday letters she’s collected stretching back to the 1960s that serves as an archive of the rise of American busyness. Words and phrases that began surfacing in the 1970s and 1980s — “hectic,” “whirlwind,” “consumed,” “crazy,” “constantly on the run” and “way too fast” — now appear with astonishing frequency.
People compete over being busy; it’s about showing status. “If you’re busy, you’re important. You’re leading a full and worthy life,” Burnett says. Keeping up with the Joneses used to be about money, cars and homes. Now, she explains, “if you’re not as busy as the Joneses, you’d better get cracking.”
Even as neuroscience is beginning to show that at our most idle, our brains are most open to inspiration and creativity — and history proves that great works of art, philosophy and invention were created during leisure time — we resist taking time off. Psychologists treat burned-out clients who can’t shake the notion that the busier you are, the faster you work, and the more you multitask, the more you are considered competent, smart, successful. It’s the Protestant work ethic in overdrive.
In the Middle Ages, this kind of frenzy — called acedia, the opposite of sloth — was one of Catholicism’s seven deadly sins. But today, busyness is seen as so valuable that people are actually happier when they’re busy, says Christopher Hsee, a psychologist and professor of behavioral science at the University of Chicago. “If people remain idle, they are miserable,” he wrote in Psychological Science in 2010. “If idle people become busy, they will be happier.”
Life in the early 21st century wasn’t supposed to be so hectic. In a 1930 essay, economist John Maynard Keynes predicted a 15-hour workweek by 2030, when we’d all have time to enjoy “the hour and the day virtuously and well.” During the 1950s, the post-World War II boom in productivity, along with rising incomes and standards of living, led economists and politicians to predict that by 1990, Americans would work 22 hours a week, six months a year, and retire before age 40.
While accepting the Republican Party’s nomination for president in 1956, Dwight D. Eisenhower envisioned a world where “leisure . . . will be abundant, so that all can develop the life of the spirit, of reflection, of religion, of the arts, of the full realization of the good things of the world.”
At the time, the idea that leisure would soon be meant for all, rather than just a wealthy elite, was quite radical. A 1959 article in the Harvard Business Review warned that “boredom, which used to bother only aristocrats, had become a common curse.” In the early 1960s, when TV broadcaster Eric Sevareid was asked what he considered the gravest crisis facing Americans, he said: “the rise of leisure.”
Leisure for all was exactly what the U.S. labor movement had been pursuing for more than a century. As late as 1923, the steel industry required 12-hour shifts, seven days a week. Finally, it seemed, workers were about to savor shorter, saner work hours. So, what happened?
First: Life got more expensive, and wages failed to keep up. College tuition alone jumped 1,120 percent from 1978 to 2012. Child Care Aware of America reports that child care is more expensive than public college in dozens of states. The Kaiser Family Foundation says that health-care premiums increased 97 percent between 2002 and 2012. At the same time, wages have fallen to record lows as a share of America’s gross domestic product. Until 1975, wages made up 50 percent of GDP; in 2012, they were 43.5 percent. And, as a recent obnoxious Cadillac commercial boasts, we work hard to buy more things: The Commerce Department reports that consumers spent $1.2 trillion in 2011 on unnecessary stuff, 11.2 percent of all consumer spending, way up from 4 percent in 1959.
Second: Jobs have become less mechanical and work more creative. New York University sociologist Dalton Conley argues that today’s knowledge-economy professions in art, technology, engineering and academics are similar to the pursuits of the mind that the ancient Greek philosophers envisioned as leisure. So, we work a lot because we enjoy it.
That’s true in part, but the rise in working hours for the creative class in the 1970s and 1980s was accompanied by an increase in job insecurity for those same workers, according to the General Social Survey. And the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, which protects employees from working too many hours, applies only to hourly, not salaried, workers. In the crudest sense, U.S. law allows employers to work professionals harder without paying them overtime or hiring more people to share the load.
Perhaps we have no choice, then, as a matter of survival, to give greater value to the work that we are compelled to do all the time.
“Work has become central in our lives, answering the religious questions of ‘Who are you?’ and ‘How do you find meaning and purpose in your life?’ ” Ben Hunnicutt, one of the few leisure scholars in America, tells me. “Leisure has been trivialized — something only silly girls want, to have time to shop and gossip.”
Taking time for yourself is tantamount to weakness. One man in Burnett’s focus group, who works two jobs and juggles caring for two special-needs children, says he longs to go canoeing but feels he just can’t. “Leisure sometimes just feels . . . wrong.”

Thursday, September 14, 2017

The Case for the Rebel



Disruptive students may not be the easiest to have in class, but perhaps defiance should be encouraged.


It tends to be common knowledge that Albert Einstein was bad at school, but less known is that he was also bad in school. Einstein not only received failing grades—a problem for which he was often summoned to the headmaster’s office—but he also had a bad attitude. He sat in the back of the class smirking at the teacher; he was disrespectful and disruptive; he questioned everything; and, when he was faced with the ultimatum to straighten up or drop out, he dropped out. That’s right: Albert Einstein was a dropout. And yet, he grew up to become one of the greatest thinkers in human history.


One can write off Einstein’s accomplishments as an exception to the rule; they can reason that his behavior was actually a symptom of being so smart that school didn’t challenge him, which is probably somewhat true. But what if what made Einstein a change agent was his rebellious nature rather than his intelligence? After all, the world is full of brilliant people who accomplish very little compared to Einstein.


I have a student like this in my class right now. He is a brilliant creative writer. I give him highly intellectual books, articles, and authors to read on his own because he often asks me highly intellectual questions that I can’t quite answer, but for which I know he will find answers in those texts. He typically brings the book back to me in a few days, having read it cover to cover and dog-eared most of its pages.


He is failing two classes but stays up all night long to write short stories and comes to school overtired and irritable. He rolls his eyes at anything he deems as busy work, comes into class and intentionally sits with his back to me, and continues to chat with friends long after I have started the lesson. He barely completes most assignments, if at all, and I have to constantly nag him to focus and stop distracting other students.


He is, in short, a huge pain. But when his parent came in to have a conference with me last fall, I found myself looking a worried adult in the eye and telling him what I believe to be the truth: His son is going to be okay. In fact, I told him that his son will someday stand out from the others; he will find a career he loves because he is passionate, intense, brilliant, and fiercely independent. Even though this student is a pain to teach, he is someone I will likely respect when he matures into an adult.


Throughout my years as an educator, the colleagues I admire the most tend to fit the same description. My favorite colleagues ask tough questions of school leadership, are impatient with the status quo, and often intentionally break rules if it means a better education for the students in their classrooms. What tends to be expected of students in schools is the opposite of what many people admire in adults. And yet, students who raise their hands, sit quietly, do their work without question, and generally have figured out how to “do school” are the ones who tend to benefit most from the system and the ones who seem to have the strongest “work ethic” in the classroom. In a study of teacher expectations and perceptions on student behavior, most teachers noted that self-control and cooperation were the most important indicators of school success.


I can attest that students who are self-disciplined, quiet when asked to be quiet, and generally do what they are told in a cooperative manner tend to be easier to teach. Like many teachers, I have validated these behaviors through extrinsic rewards and praise. But I have also found that sometimes the students who are uncooperative, undisciplined, and even rude tend to be strong leaders. In fact, in a recent study, children who were found to be defiant rule-breakers tended to grow up to be academic over-achievers and high-earning adults. Other students seem to gravitate toward these types of students. This is why people often speak admirably of the “class clown”—there is something intriguing about a rebel, even if the rebel’s behavior is destructive.


I recently heard on the radio a state legislator speaking of the importance of developing “soft skills” for the workforce. He elaborated on the merits of understanding the importance of a firm handshake, showing up 10 minutes early, and being a “team player.” As I listened to him, I thought these were admirable traits—traits that my own father tried desperately to instill in me, which I generally ignored—but they were mostly values held by an older generation. And he isn’t incorrect; research shows that “conscientious” and “agreeable” people are often more successful in the workplace. But maybe the problem is with the various definitions of success, rather than with individuals who do not fit the profile of an agreeable worker. After dropping out of school, many would have believed Einstein to be unsuccessful, but I doubt many people would say that now.


If the definition of success can change according to perception, so too can the definition of work ethic. Millennials tend to have a vastly different definition of work ethic than traditional business employers do. For example, 9 percent of college students define preparedness as “work ethic,” compared to 23 percent of business leaders and 18 percent of recruiters. And while the definitions of work ethic and success are already evolving given the Silicon Valley mentality that rebellious youth can be valuable disrupters, the general, traditional perception is that the employers have it right, while the millennials need to be whipped into shape considering they are “often the last hired and first fired.” But maybe it’s employers who need to adapt to a new generation of thinkers and not the other way around.


In his book Originals, Adam Grant gives example after example of original thinkers like Einstein who changed the world by rebelling against the status quo. He notes that procrastination, consistent tardiness, and a tendency to upset authority figures are actually important characteristics for original thinkers. I’m sure the state legislator on the radio would have been infuriated by a young Einstein with a bad attitude. But the rebels in the world are often the ones who change it the most.


A few years ago, I taught a student who, like the aforementioned one I currently teach, was awful in class. He was rude, disrespectful, disengaged, and spent every ounce of his energy trying to entertain his peers regardless of the frustration it caused me as the teacher. He didn’t care about getting into trouble—detentions, suspensions, and daily visits to the principal’s office were utterly ineffective in managing his behavior. I would love to say that through hard work, persistence, and a few heart-to-heart talks, he was suddenly a great student who made straight As, but that isn’t what happened. He was a difficult student from the start to the end of the school year, and for the rest of his high-school career, as my colleagues often shared.


But this former student recently found me on social media and wrote to explain that he had matured after high school, enrolled in college, and started acting in the plays produced by his college’s drama department. He got his degree and now manages a drama camp for teens. This didn’t surprise me: As the drama director back then, I saw a difference in him on stage versus sitting at a desk. He even had some pretty good days in class if we did skits or readers’ theater. He wasn’t a bad kid; he was a performer. Yet I worried about his future—in fact, I wished desperately for him to switch schools—because he just couldn’t seem to “get it together” and often made my job much more difficult.


Now I see that he wasn’t the problem at all—rather, it was the traditional expectations of school behavior and subsequent definition of success. The influence that traditional thinking had on me as an educator affected how I viewed him.


Granted, teaching is difficult enough without expecting individual teachers to encourage defiant and difficult behavior in the hopes that it will lead to children who grow into original thinkers as adults, but there are ways for teachers to encourage and set boundaries for such behavior. Teachers can create strengths-focused classrooms that help students like the class clowns and the rebels see the value in their gifts and reframe them positively, rather than seeking negative attention. As with my former student, this isn’t always possible on a day-to-day basis, but because I found ways to integrate dramatic arts into my lessons and offer him opportunities to perform inside and outside the classroom, I do think I was able to guide him to a positive outlet for his natural talents and instincts.


And there is no denying that rebels can be dangerous, both inside and outside the classroom. There is inherently a destructive nature to rebellion. A disruptive student can utterly destroy a positive learning environment for him or herself, the other students, and the teacher. And embracing dangerous rebels can also have negative impacts elsewhere. Yet, his continued brand as a rebel outsider bringing in his friends does gain support from many. It occurs to me that by providing opportunities for young rebels to find positive outlets for rebellion as my current student has with writing and my former one did with drama, they could become assets to society’s institutions, rather than a liability.


Even though the class clown, the snarky kid in the back, and the D-student may create problems for teachers and the school, they often have skills that can’t always be taught. They tend to be courageous, outspoken, persistent, and creative people—kids who may not make great students or become the kind of employees with a “really strong handshake,” but who instead become the kind of people who lead and forge new paths for others. As a teacher and a parent, I want to help create those kind of people. I want to help mold people who don’t just learn to show up on time, but bring something positive and original to the table when they get there.


Ashley Lamb-Sinclair

The Atlantic

Sunday, October 23, 2016

The Purpose Of Life Is Not Happiness: It’s Usefulness

For the longest time, I believed that there’s only purpose of life: And that is to be happy.
Right? Why else go through all the pain and hardship? It’s to achieve happiness in some way.
And I’m not the only person who believed that. In fact, if you look around you, most people are pursuing happiness in their lives.
That’s why we collectively buy shit we don’t need, go to bed with people we don’t love, and try to work hard to get approval of people we don’t like.
Why do we do these things? To be honest, I don’t care what the exact reason is. I’m not a scientist. All I know is that it has something to do with history, culture, media, economy, psychology, politics, the information era, and you name it. The list is endless.

We are who are. 

Let’s just accept that. Most people love to analyze why people are not happy or don’t live fulfilling lives. I don’t necessarily care about the why.
I care more about how we can change.
Just a few short years ago, I did everything to chase happiness.
  • You buy something, and you think that makes you happy.
  • You hook up with people, and think that makes you happy.
  • You get a well-paying job you don’t like, and think that makes you happy.
  • You go on holiday, and you think that makes you happy.
But at the end of the day, you’re lying in your bed (alone or next to your spouse), and you think: “What’s next in this endless pursuit of happiness?”
Well, I can tell you what’s next: You, chasing something random that you believe makes you happy.
It’s all a façade. A hoax. A story that’s been made up.
Did Aristotle lie to us when he said:
“Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence.”
I think we have to look at that quote from a different angle. Because when you read it, you think that happiness is the main goal. And that’s kind of what the quote says as well.

But here’s the thing: How do you achieve happiness?

Happiness can’t be a goal in itself. Therefore, it’s not something that’s achievable.
I believe that happiness is merely a byproduct of usefulness.
When I talk about this concept with friends, family, and colleagues, I always find it difficult to put this into words. But I’ll give it a try here.
Most things we do in life are just activities and experiences.
  • You go on holiday.
  • You go to work.
  • You go shopping.
  • You have drinks.
  • You have dinner.
  • You buy a car.
Those things should make you happy, right? But they are not useful. You’re not creating anything. You’re just consuming or doing something. And that’s great.
Don’t get me wrong. I love to go on holiday, or go shopping sometimes. But to be honest, it’s not what gives meaning to life.
What really makes me happy is when I’m useful. When I create something that others can use. Or even when I create something I can use.
For the longest time I foud it difficult to explain the concept of usefulness and happiness. But when I recently ran into a quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson, the dots connected.
Emerson says:
“The purpose of life is not to be happy. It is to be useful, to be honorable, to be compassionate, to have it make some difference that you have lived and lived well.”
And I didn’t get that before I became more conscious of what I’m doing with my life. And that always sounds heavy and all. But it’s actually really simple.

It comes down to this: What are you DOING that’s making a difference?

Did you do useful things in your lifetime? You don’t have to change the world or anything. Just make it a little bit better than you were born.
If you don’t know how, here are some ideas.
  • Help your boss with something that’s not your responsibility.
  • Take your mother to a spa.
  • Create a collage with pictures (not a digital one) for your spouse.
  • Write an article about the stuff you learned in life.
  • Help the pregnant lady who also has a 2-year old with her stroller.
  • Call your friend and ask if you can help with something.
  • Build a standing desk.
  • Start a business and hire an employee and treat them well.
That’s just some stuff I like to do. You can make up your own useful activities.
You see? It’s not anything big. But when you do little useful things every day, it adds up to a life that is well lived. A life that mattered.
The last thing I want is to be on my deathbed and realize there’s zero evidence that I ever existed.
Recently I read Not Fade Away by Laurence Shames and Peter Barton. It’s about Peter Barton, the founder of Liberty Media, who shares his thoughts about dying from cancer.
It’s a very powerful book and it will definitely bring tears to your eyes. In the book, he writes about how he lived his life and how he found his calling. He also went to business school, and this is what he thought of his fellow MBA candidates:
“Bottom line: they were extremely bright people who would never really doanything, would never add much to society, would leave no legacy behind. I found this terribly sad, in the way that wasted potential is always sad.”
You can say that about all of us. And after he realized that in his thirties, he founded a company that turned him into a multi-millionaire.
Another person who always makes himself useful is Casey Neistat. I’ve been following him for a year and a half now, and every time I watch his YouTube show, he’s doing something.
He also talks about how he always wants to do and create something. He even has a tattoo on his forearm that says “Do More.”
Most people would say, “why would you work more?” And then they turn on Netflix and watch back to back episodes of Daredevil.

A different mindset.

Being useful is a mindset. And like with any mindset, it starts with a decision. One day I woke up and thought to myself: What am I doing for this world? The answer was nothing.
And that same day I started writing. For you it can be painting, creating a product, helping elderly, or anything you feel like doing.
Don’t take it too seriously. Don’t overthink it. Just DO something that’s useful. Anything.

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Dünya Savaşları Hakkında

Birinci Dünya Savaşı’nda İslâmiyet’in son güçlü kalesi Osmanlı Devleti’ni yıkıp müslümanları perişan edenler, İkinci Dünya Savaşı’nda buna bir ceza olarak kaderin takdiriyle hunharca birbirlerine girdiler. Bu savaş en şiddetli zulümlere ve en müthiş istibdatlara sahne olarak, merhametsiz tahribat ile tek bir düşman yüzünden yüzlerce masum perişan edildi...

– Mağlup olan devletler ve milletler dehşetli ümitsizliklere düştüler...

– Galipler de dehşetli telaşlara kapıldılar. Hâkimiyetlerini muhafaza edememe ve büyük tahribatlarını tamir edememelerinden gelen dehşetli vicdan azaplarının acıları içindeler...

– Bu hengâmede dünya hayatının bütün bütün fânî olduğu ve medeniyet fantaziyelerinin aldatıcı ve uyutucu olduğu herkese açıkça göründü...

– İnsanın fıtrat ve yaratılışındaki yüksek istidat ve kabiliyetler, hem insanın yüce ve yüksek mâhiyeti, bu savaşta olanlar karşısında umumî bir surette ve dehşetli şekilde yaralandı...

İman ve Hayat Hakkında


Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Dünya Hayatı

“Bir annenin çocuğuna karşı duyduğu kör sevgi, kendini beğenmiş bir babanın biricik oğulcuğuyla körü körüne ve aptalca gururlanışı, burnu havada genç bir kadının ziynet eşyalarına tutkunluğu ve kendisine hayranlıkla bakacak erkek gözlerine körü körüne, çılgınca düşkünlüğü, bütün bu duygular, bütün bu çocukluklar, bütün bu basit, aptalca, ama alabildiğine zorlu, güçlü bir dirimsellik içeren, kolay kolay pes etmeyen duygular ve açgözlü istekler Siddhartha için çocukluk olmaktan çıkmıştı artık; insanların bu duygular ve istekler için yaşadığını, onların uğrunda sonsuz işler başardığını, gezilere çıktığını, savaşlar yaptığını, sonsuz acılar çektiğini, sonsuz çilelere katlandığını görüyordu.”


Hakkal Yakîn

“Bilinmesi gereken şeyleri insanın kendisinin tatması iyidir,” diye geçirdi içinden. “Dünya zevklerinin ve dünya malının insana hayır getirmeyeceğini daha çocukken öğrendim. Hanidir biliyordum bunu, ama ancak şimdi yaşadım. Ve şimdi biliyorum, belleğimle değil, gözlerimle, yüreğimle, midemle biliyordum böyle olduğunu. Ne mutlu bana ki, biliyorum artık!”

Sansara

“Siddhartha ticareti öğrenmiş, insanları etkisi altına almayı", kadınlarla gönül eğlemeyi öğrenmişti, şık giysiler giymeyi, uşakları sağa sola koşturmayı, ıtırlı sularda yıkanmayı öğrenmişti. İncelik ve özenle hazırlanmış yemekleri, balığı, eti, kuş etini, baharatları ve tatlıları yemeyi öğrenmiş, insanı miskin ve unutkan yapan şaraplar içmeyi öğrenmişti. Zar oyunlarını ve satranç oynamayı öğrenmişti ayrıca. Dansözleri seyretmeyi, kendisini tahtırevanda taşıtmayı, yumuşak yataklarda yatmayı öğrenmişti. Ama yine de kendisini başkalarından farklı ve başkalarından üstün hissetmekten bir türlü vazgeçmemişti, başkalarına biraz alayla, biraz alaylı bir küçümsemeyle bakmıştı hep, bir Samananın kendilerini dünyaya adamış insanlara karşı beslediği bir küçümsemeyle. Ne zaman Kamaswami hastalansa, kızıp öfkelense, kendini aşağılanmış hissetse, işle ilgili tasa ve kaygılara kaptırsa kendini, Siddhartha durumu hep alayla karşılamıştı. Ama geçip giden ekin mevsimleri, geçip giden yağmur mevsimleriyle Siddhartha’nın alaycılığı da yavaş yavaş ve farkına varılmaksızın yorgun düşmüş, üstünlük duygusu yatışmıştı biraz. Bir yandan serveti giderek büyürken, o çocuk insanların kimi özelliklerini yavaş yavaş kendine mal etmiş, onların çocuksuluklarından ve korkularından birazı ona da geçmişti. Öyleyken bu insanlara imreniyor, onlara ne çok benzerse, içindeki imrenme duygusu da o kadar büyüyordu. Onlarda bulunup kendisinde eksik olan bir şey vardı, bu yüzden imreniyordu onlara, bu insanların hayatlarına verdikleri öneme, sevinç ve korkuları coşkuyla yaşamalarına, o bitip tükenmeyen sevdalanmalarındaki ürkek, ama tatlı mutluluğa imreniyordu. Kendi kendilerine, kendi kadınlarına, çocuklarına, onura ya da paraya, planlara ya da umutlara sürekli sevdalanmış durumdaydı bu insanlar. Ama Siddhartha bunu, tam da bunu, bu çocuksu sevinci ve çocuksu budalalığı öğrenmemişti onlardan; inadına kendisinin de aşağıladığı tatsız bir davranış öğrenmişti. Sık sık öyle oluyordu ki, eğlenceyle geçirilen bir gecenin sabahında hayli zaman yataktan çıkmıyor, üzerinde bir sersemlik ve yorgunluk hissediyordu. Çokluk öyle oluyor ki, Kamaswami kendi dertleriyle başını ağrıttı mı, sinirlenip sabırsızlanıyordu. Bir zar oyununda kaybetse, attığı kahkaha fazla yüksek perdeden çıkıyordu çokluk. Yüzünde başkalarının yüzündekinden daha zeki ve ruhani bir ifade vardı, ama seyrek gülüyordu bu yüz, varlıklı insanların yüzünde pek sık rastlanan özellikleri, hoşnutsuzluğu, hastalıklı görünümü, keyifsizliği, miskinliği, seviden yoksunluğu birer birer alıp benimsiyordu. Zenginlerin ruhlarındaki hastalık yavaş yavaş kavrıyordu onu.

Yorgunluk bir tül, ince bir sis gibi yavaş yavaş üzerine çöküyordu Siddhartha’nın, günden güne biraz daha yoğunlaşıyor, aydan aya biraz daha bulanık, yıldan yıla biraz daha ağır oluyordu. Yeni bir giysi zamanla nasıl eskirse, zamanla güzel rengini yitirir, üzerinde lekeler belirir, buruşup kırışır, etek uçları örselenir, kimi yerlerde tatsız püsküller oluşursa, Govinda’dan ayrıldıktan sonra Siddhartha’nın yaşamaya başladığı yeni yaşam da eskimiş, yıllar geçtikçe rengini ve parlaklığını yitirmiş, üzeri lekelenip buruşukluk ve kırışıklıklarla kaplanmıştı. Aslında henüz gizli saklı olmakla beraber sağda solda düş kırıklığı ve tiksinti şimdiden başını uzatmış, bekliyordu. Ama Siddhartha farkında değildi bunun. Fark ettiği tek şey vardı, eskiden içinde uyanıp kendisine en güzel günlerinde izleyeceği yolu gösteren aydınlık ve güvenilir sesin susmuş olmasıydı.

Dünya onu avcuna almış, zevk, şehvet, miskinlik ve nihayet kötü huyların her zaman en aptalcası olduğunu düşünüp hepsinden çok küçümsediği ve alay ettiği açgözlülük onu ele geçirmişti. Ayrıca, mal, mülk ve servet hırsı da yakasına yapışmış, bir oyun, bir süs olmaktan çıkıp bir zincire, bir yüke dönüşmüştü. Siddhartha bu hepsinden kötü bağımlılığı tuhaf ve hileli bir yoldan, zar oyunlarıyla edinmişti. Çünkü yüreğinde Samanalığa son verdiğinden beri para ve değerli eşya karşılığı oynadığı oyuna, daha önce çocuk insanların bir alışkanlığı diye bakıp gülümsediği, umursamadığı kumara giderek artan bir hırs ve tutkuyla sarılmıştı. Yaman bir oyuncuydu, onunla oynamaya cesaret eden pek az kişi vardı, öyle ufak şeylere oynamıyordu çünkü. Gönlündeki bir gereksinimden oynuyordu kumarı, rezil parayı kaybedip çarçur etmek, onu öfkeyle karışık bir sevince boğuyordu; zenginliğe, ticaretle uğraşanların taptığı bu puta karşı küçümsemesini başka hiçbir yoldan daha belirgin ve daha alaylı gösteremezdi. Dolayısıyla yüksek ve acımasızca oynuyor, kendi kendinden nefret ederek, kendi kendisiyle alay ederek sürüyle para kazanıyor, sürüyle para kaybediyor, paradan, mücevherden, sayfiye evinden oluyor, yeniden kazanıyor bunları, yeniden kaybediyordu. Zar atarken, ortada dönen paranın yüksekliğiyle kalbi çarparken duyduğu korkuyu, o müthiş ve soluksuz bırakan korkuyu seviyor, sürekli yeniden tatmaya çalışıyor onu, sürekli büyütmeye çalışıyor, yalnızca bu duygudadır ki kendi doymuş, pörsümüş, yavanlaşmış yaşamının ortasında mutluluğa, esrikliğe benzer, yücelmiş bir yaşama benzer bir şeyler hissedebiliyordu. Ve her yüklü kayıptan sonra yeni zenginliklerin planını yapıyor, kendini eskiden büyük bir çabayla ticaret işine veriyor, borçluları daha çok sık boğaz edip ödemeye zorluyordu borçlarını, çünkü ilerde de kumar oynamak, ilerde de kaybetmek, ilerde de zenginliğe karşı küçümsemesini açığa vurmak istiyordu. Siddhartha kaybettiği zamanlar serinkanlılığını eskisi gibi koruyamıyor, eli ağır borçlulara karşı eskisi gibi sabır gösteremiyordu artık; dilencilere karşı iyi kalpliliğini yitirmiş, bağış için gelenlere bağışta bulunmaktan, borç isteyenlere borç vermekten zevk almaz olmuştu. Bir zar atışta kucakla para kaybetmekle kalmayıp üstelik buna gülen Siddhartha ticaret işinde daha katı ve cimri birine dönüşmüştü, geceleri bazen para görüyordu düşünde. Ve bu çirkin büyüden her uyanışında, yatak odasının aynasına bakıp yüzünü yaşlanmış ve çirkinleşmiş bulduğu her seferinde, utanç ve tiksinti üzerine her çullandığında kaçmayı sürdürüyor, kaçıp yeni talih oyunlarına, şehvetin ve şarabın uyuşturucu etkisine sığınıyor, oradan dönüp servet edinme, para biriktirme dürtüsünün eline bırakıyordu kendini. Bu kısır döngüde dönüp durdukta yorgun düşüyor, yaşlanıp kocuyor, hastalanıyordu.

Arınma Yolculuğu



“Siddhartha, giysisini yolda rastladığı yoksul bir Brahmana verdi. Kendisi edep yerini örten bir bez parçası ve haki renkte dikişsiz bir üstlükle kaldı. Günde yalnız bir öğün yemek yiyor, pişmiş şeyleri hiç ağzına koymuyordu. On beş gün oruç tuttu bir defasında, bir defasında da yirmi sekiz gün. Kalçalarındaki et eriyip gitti. Büyümüş gözleri sıcak düşlerle yandı, tutuştu, kuruyup incelmiş parmaklarında tırnakları iyice uzadı ve çenesini çalı gibi, bakımsız bir sakal kapladı. Bakışları buz gibi soğudu kadınlarla karşılaştıkça; şık giyimli insanlarla dolu bir kentten geçerken ağzı küçümsemeyle büzüldü. Tacirlerin ticaretle uğraştığını, prenslerin avlanmaya gittiğini, yaslıların ağlayıp sızlayarak ölülerinin yasını tuttuğunu, fahişelerin gelip geçenlere kendilerini peşkeş çektiğini, hekimlerin hasta tedavisiyle uğraştığını, rahiplerin ekin ekilecek günü saptadığını, sevgililerin seviştiğini, annelerin çocuklarını emzirdiğini gördü, ama bütün bunlar gözlerinin bakışına değmeyecek şeylerdi, hepsi yalan söylüyordu, hepsi pis pis kokuyor, yalan dolan kokuyor hepsi, hepsi soyluluk, mutluluk ve güzellik bağışlayan şeylermiş gibi sahte bir izlenim uyandırmaya çalışıyordu, ama her şey gerçekte çürüyüp kokuşmaydı yalnızca. Dünyanın acı bir tadı vardı. Eziyetti yaşamak.

Bir hedef bulunuyordu Siddhartha’nın önünde, tek bir hedef: Arınmış olmak, susamalardan arınmış, istemelerden arınmış, düşlerden, sevinçlerden, acılardan arınmış. Ölerek kendinden kurtulmak, ben olmaktan çıkmak, boşalmış bir yürekle dinginliğe kavuşmak, benliksiz düşünmelerle mucizelere kapıları açmak, işte buydu onun hedefi. Ben tümüyle saf dışı bırakılıp öldürüldü mü, gönüldeki tüm tutku ve dürtülerin sesleri kısıldı mı, işte o zaman gözlerini açacaktı en son şey, varlıktaki artık Ben olmayan öz, o büyük giz.”

Arınma Yolculuğu



“Siddhartha, giysisini yolda rastladığı yoksul bir Brahmana verdi. Kendisi edep yerini örten bir bez parçası ve haki renkte dikişsiz bir üstlükle kaldı. Günde yalnız bir öğün yemek yiyor, pişmiş şeyleri hiç ağzına koymuyordu. On beş gün oruç tuttu bir defasında, bir defasında da yirmi sekiz gün. Kalçalarındaki et eriyip gitti. Büyümüş gözleri sıcak düşlerle yandı, tutuştu, kuruyup incelmiş parmaklarında tırnakları iyice uzadı ve çenesini çalı gibi, bakımsız bir sakal kapladı. Bakışları buz gibi soğudu kadınlarla karşılaştıkça; şık giyimli insanlarla dolu bir kentten geçerken ağzı küçümsemeyle büzüldü. Tacirlerin ticaretle uğraştığını, prenslerin avlanmaya gittiğini, yaslıların ağlayıp sızlayarak ölülerinin yasını tuttuğunu, fahişelerin gelip geçenlere kendilerini peşkeş çektiğini, hekimlerin hasta tedavisiyle uğraştığını, rahiplerin ekin ekilecek günü saptadığını, sevgililerin seviştiğini, annelerin çocuklarını emzirdiğini gördü, ama bütün bunlar gözlerinin bakışına değmeyecek şeylerdi, hepsi yalan söylüyordu, hepsi pis pis kokuyor, yalan dolan kokuyor hepsi, hepsi soyluluk, mutluluk ve güzellik bağışlayan şeylermiş gibi sahte bir izlenim uyandırmaya çalışıyordu, ama her şey gerçekte çürüyüp kokuşmaydı yalnızca. Dünyanın acı bir tadı vardı. Eziyetti yaşamak.

Bir hedef bulunuyordu Siddhartha’nın önünde, tek bir hedef: Arınmış olmak, susamalardan arınmış, istemelerden arınmış, düşlerden, sevinçlerden, acılardan arınmış. Ölerek kendinden kurtulmak, ben olmaktan çıkmak, boşalmış bir yürekle dinginliğe kavuşmak, benliksiz düşünmelerle mucizelere kapıları açmak, işte buydu onun hedefi. Ben tümüyle saf dışı bırakılıp öldürüldü mü, gönüldeki tüm tutku ve dürtülerin sesleri kısıldı mı, işte o zaman gözlerini açacaktı en son şey, varlıktaki artık Ben olmayan öz, o büyük giz.”