A Strange Conversation

A Strange Conversation

“The fact that you can observe your body is proof that you are not your body.”

Erin Janus

Ezi: How did you establish this fact that you cannot observe your body?
Me: The reference is to the fact that any being very well aware about its existence is not awed by its limbs, color or characteristics to be precise. Since we not only observe our body & being but also very astonished about our characteristics and even the significant changes of our body are simply clearly a proof that we are not of our body but enclosed as such. It’s my assumption here that anyone who chose this picture and wrote down those sentences meant the distinction of Body & Soul.

Ezi: Keeping your assumption in consideration, it seems like your assumption is a necessity to your motive to explain the fact. Well it’s not! …In a real world, where we talk about facts, we don’t describe soul and body discreetly a two separate entities, but they are combined to give us status of a being. A being aware of oneself….
Me: In the factual disposition of yours to describe all entities as beings based upon discreteness. We must always adhere to the reality of our principles and upbringing. That being said we both know and believe that our principles and thoughts are aligned with a book that is holier than thou or thee. That principle knowledge enlightens us to the FACT of distinction between soul and body. Which maybe an unrealistic fiction or gibberish between the people of the other world but within our circles I must say it is a fact and that too a distinct fact.


Ezi: I believe restricting a study by bringing already established theories whether religious or not is unfair to the quest of knowledge. Keeping that in consideration, I would suggest that precisely we should take it as a quest instead of debate. Establishing that, I would insist upon you in looking into the credentials of the person whose quote you are trying to prove with a religious angle. She is an artist this Erin Janus, and I am not doubting her intellectual depth but I would assume that she is an atheist or maybe someone who may not agree with the concept of divinity as you might.
Me: Analyzing your statement; one is not dissuaded by the inconsistent thought process which seems to be the underlying condition my friend. I may redirect your attention towards the early statements where you unabashedly defended the cause of ‘Facts’ whereupon the next you stood by the currents of ‘Realism’, now you seem to advocate the relentless pursuit of ‘Knowledge’.

The knowledge is the uniform and a wholesome perspective of all and not just facts or figures my dear, not fiction and certainly not religion. What I am preaching nonetheless is the course of just highlighting the angle of religion just a little, rest the artist as you now have knowledge about lacks any affinity towards religion. Instead Erin portrayed a generic statement which attracts people like you and me to debate this and so forth. Last but not the least, I really hope that you might not have just discounted Islam for the sake of it being used too much, too often and almost all the time by some factions never truly in knowledge of its true essence and depth… I used it not for the justification of it but rather glorifying something which already is.


Ezi: Ok apart from the cultural diversities, perplexing views on religion, underlying bias and of course the relentless pursuit of knowledge. What we should be discussing is not what the author deems true to her perception but rather the noble cause due to which this gibberish sprouted. We should be addressing the stem of the question mark and thereby concluding with some positivity rather than obtaining an impasse.
Me: Now we are in agreement, so let’s see if the conclusion finds us in ever gleaming positivity. I believe we can see eye-to-eye once we awaken the dormant potential we all carry, that I will clarify by the end of my sentences. So, we traveled around each other heads only to find that one can only swim so far in the stream of consciousness. Positivism… My friend doesn’t reside in the hollow letters, it resides in the soul of the writer and reader both. It matters not if one of them is positive. While the author may have written everything in complete goodness, we the readers are tested in the matters of all things related to interpretation and perception.

Aligning my earlier statements; I wanted to portray my mind about the way I think, that is the existence of soul encapsulated in the flesh and bone we call body. Your thought was nonetheless equal in weight and depth. But apart from
stretching the least used muscle in our body we needed to understand the reflection of thoughts that stem from us. We needed to realize that it doesn’t matter if we scrutinize any statement in the light of realism, idealism, pragmatism or even religion which seems to be a very sensitive topic in the present prevailing times. There is absolutely no use in divulging in a conversation that loses its way in the shadows of ego and ignorance. The only way to make any discussion is not look forward for the end result but rather discipline oneself to remain calm, steady, literate and most of all positive. We must understand that if we need ever to break the impasse of the lengthy conversations such as this or controversial and volatile debates taking place throughout world is the necessity of positivity. If the dialogue had even the slightest taint of negativity then it lost all value what-so-ever, even if the end result of those tainted conversations were perfectly good.
Now as I conclude my long grumbling I will enlighten you about the potential I said earlier. That potential is ‘Understanding and Respect’. It’s always there but we neither nurture it nor seek it within ourselves.



Leave a Reply