If you don’t fill your mind with beneficial things, then nothing beneficial can come out. Is this an excuse, or an expression of purity, and humbleness?
Everything’s blank, when there’s nothing left to fill. Empty spaces filled with nothing – if only the nothing was something, then anything would be everything.
As some have said when asked, ‘What’s is such and such worth?’ –
‘Nothing… and everything!’
Is that man’s nature, to ascribe worthlessness to what he owns, and simultaneously jealously guard what is his, as it means ‘everything’ to him? Is it a case of every man for himself? - He keeps what is his, and doesn’t want other hands to touch it. He will also, no doubt, crave more than what he has, and thus ruthlessly seek what others have, and try to attain it by any means, to grip it with his own hand, to say, ‘This is mine’. The emptiness is never filled.
This, however, is a state of the worst members of humanity, surely not a quality shared by all – at least in deed, if not in thought. Maybe all hearts have a share in this disease, but not everyone acts upon the desire to own. We can still hazard to have hope in humanity’s goodness, can’t we?
Isn’t there inherent goodness in all, as well as an inclination towards evil? If we examine ourselves, we can see those aspects which could be called ‘natural’, and could be categorised in either way. Let’s say anger, covetousness, greed and the like all comprise of evilness, especially if they become the focus of one’s life, and the motivation for one’s actions. Similarly, love, kindness, and pity (as long as it isn’t for the self) are good feelings, and the one who lives their life according to them will have goals seeking to unite humanity, and for the world to exist in peace and harmony.
Life is a choice, between living for one’s own advances, at the cost of anyone else, and still not attaining fulfilment, or living by love and kindness and seeking for the benefit of mankind as a whole.
What does this mean? Does everyone automatically feel that they would be happiest being the second kind? It seems like the best option to this author, but is that because of some bias, based on a particular cultural conditioning?
It seems that to care for the needy, be generous, love for one’s neighbour more than one loves for one’s own self, these are the deeds of goodness, and hence one who lives in this way would be considered good. Yes, it would be true, wouldn’t it, in any cultural setting?
There is, however, a crux. What if the reasons for a person’s ‘goodness’ are essentially for his own self-gratification, for his ‘good’ actions to be seen by other men, and his own ‘fulfillment’ is in his pride that he is so generous, loving and kind. What if one lives in this hypocritical state?
This is why the measure for all goodness has to come into focus - that anything and everything belongs to the Creator, the Sustainer, and ever-living God - even one’s own actions. So anyone who is doing anything should know that it is for or against that Originator of all things, the One who has power over your life and your death, and Whom you will stand before to be reckoned as to your deeds.
Perhaps the only true way to be fulfilled, is to fully realise one’s own emptiness, and worthlessness, and at the same time hope in the acceptance of one’s meagre deeds by the most Generous, Almighty. In this way at all times you will doubt that what good you do is sincere enough to be only for Him, and this helps one always stay mindful about each deed, and what it’s purpose is, thereby hopefully leaving you with an untarnished goodness, where your actions help to better the world and what is in it.
So it is true, that if you put garbage in, all that will come out is garbage, but if all your input is good, then your output will be pure, and good, and accepted by the Lord, and you will be one of the ones who is successful in this life, as well as the life hereafter.
Peace be upon you.
