Many of you may find the blog title intriguing, and there is no wonder in such a thought as man is used to seeing problems as troubles in his way. However, I am trying to look at problems in a unique way which is hard to practice but possible to do as we all did it during our student days. In this process, I will try to point out the distinction between the ways in which we solved our student-life problems and the ways in which we solve the problems of the life past the student days. Which of these two ways is better in solving the problems of life? Aren’t the ways we solved the problems of student-life superior to the ways we solve or fail to solve the problems of life? Or, the ways that were finetuned by your experience, seasoned as sharper and quicker, are much stronger and better equipped to solve the problems of hard-life as compared to the ways of student-life? If the answer to this question is yes, why do many people fail to score good enough in solving the problems of life though their student-life scoresheets were filled with A and A+es? Conversely, why some with relatively poor student-scoresheets do well in solving the problems of life? Though there may be many reasons to the answers of these questions, the fundamental reason remains the same, and that is the moot point of this blog.
We kept learning through the student life, and the ultimate test of those learnings were the examinations where problems in the form of questions were asked. Some we answered, and some others we failed to answer. But one striking aspect across both types of questions was that we did not consider them as intimidating or superior to us. They were just testing our knowledge, not us, so our ego was not involved while answering or not answering them. Even when we failed to answer questions, we did not feel like less or humiliated because our ego was not tested. Failure to answer questions by teachers did not create any ego vis-a-vis the teachers, for, as students, knowingly or unknowingly, it was clear to us that they were testing only our knowledge. We saw only the questions that were asked, not the people who asked the questions, and used the knowledge to solve them. And, then, where were our ego? Nowhere as we had no ego while solving the problems. Isn’t, hence, this student-method of seeing problems, not problem-creators, and solving them, accordingly, a better method to solve the problems of life? It, indeed, is.
It is impossible for man to keep himself away from people as he is not natured to be unsocial. Hence, rendezvous or other ways of dealing with people are unavoidable, if not inevitable. The very fact that we are social beings shows that we are interdependent, meaning one man does not hold all the resources in him to being, and so as people do, this or that thing, as necessitated, does come across us. Hence, we have to deal with people and things irrespective of whether we like it or not. Every man who approaches us and every issue that comes in our way are to be seen as problems needing solutions, not as trouble-makers that come to test our ego. They are here to test our knowledge and skillsets. If this distinction is understood, we have passed the preliminary to handle them. And as long as we see both men and things as problems-needing-solutions, we are in for a safe passage through them. And, how does it happen?
We are used to these types of routine wailings: He is a problem in my life, this or that is a problem I have to handle. We need to ask this question: Is that person or what he does the problem? Are the issues/questions raised by him, like the questions asked by our teachers, are to be addressed and solved or should he be considered as the problem? If man keeps his ego out of the way or keeps it oblivious to himself while dealing with another person, it is certain that he will deal with the questions raised and the issues brought forward and tries to solve these problems using his knowledge, skills abilities, capabilities, intelligence and wisdom. Man may succeed or fail in this process, and, accordingly, consequence follows. The merit with this approach is that man deals with the problems of life meritoriously without getting ego injured. In order to differentiate problems from problem-creators, man should be guided by rationality. Marcus Aurelius, the great philosopher king of ancient time: AD121 to 180, says this: “Rationality is intended to signify discriminating attention to every several thing and freedom from ignorance.” Discriminating attention is reasoning. And reasoning trains mind to discern true from false.
I wish to recall a personal experience from my graduation days. My schooling was in vernacular medium that ensured that my both verbal and non-verbal English language skills remained subpar. So I was always on a retreat when English language skills were well played by my graduation acquaintances. And any small attempt to tread the English language path was well discouraged by the good Samarians by satirically ballooning the mistakes made. On the positive front, thankfully, they, in fact, made me to see my shortcomings, and I was convinced that I needed to improve substantially if I had to ever utter or write a sentence in English language without mistakes. I bought Wren and Martin High School Grammar and Composition book and studied it to my exclamation. Besides, I started to read the Hindu daily, Frontline and other English language publications to improve English, where I met what I was learning from Wren and Martin. And I still continue this never ending saga of learning English language. It is all those shortcomings of mine that I was made to see, not those who did that, that truly made the student in me to brush aside the ego and learn to grow.
If man remains steadfast in the track of reasoning — thereby training his mind to keep ego and emotions inoperative — he will see problems, not problem-creators as they will stand non-intruding but friendly as our teachers did. This differentiating or discriminating discerning, then, shall take out the intimidating or bigger-than-me image of problem creators as man will see only the problems. It brings the much-needed feeling of being superior to the problems that we face — the feeling that I am much bigger than the problems. so can I.
Marcus Aurelius said, “Is it not plain that the inferior exists for the sake of the superior? But the things that have life are superior to those that have not life, and of those that have life the superior are those that have reason.” Reason brings in life to a man over a problem that is lifeless, so a lively man effusing with reason is superior to any problems that come before him. This is how we faced the problems as students. We were leading our student-life with the reasonings provided by the books of science, the very reasons we were called students. And equally the very reasons why we did not see our ego, did not feel intimidated by our teachers and the very reasons that guided us to focus on the problems, leaving the problem-givers oblivious. This student-life approach of reason and reasoning to treat people and issues that come to us as problems-needing-solutions is probably the best possible way to live life.
Nowhere Perspectives 