Waking from Reverie

Dawn had barely broken; sleep still clung to my eyes when I opened them and looked ahead—oh God! There sat another me!!

On the gleaming white ground sat a figure with half-closed pitch-black eyes, gazing intently at me! Somewhat pensive, yet with a serene brow bearing a fold or two. The half-furrowed eyebrows kept shifting position every moment. At one corner of the mouth, a gentle yet meaningful smile hung suspended, as if frozen there! Leaning slightly forward, chin resting on the palm of the left hand, it sat perfectly still.

It said, "So the darling's royal slumber has finally broken! How much of last night's lesson have you digested? I want the results right now!"
Stretching, I replied, "If you gave me anything at all, you gave it freely; now you come demanding payment—how grand!"
"Alright then, this: When you do something at someone's request, don't you expect something in return?"
With a riddling look, I said, "I never learned to expect anything."
"Really? What does your unconscious mind say?"
"When someone wants to give me something in return, I never accept it. It makes me uncomfortable."
"Very good! I used to say something once... learn to give like nature does, don't seek to receive—not everyone knows how to give!"
"There's a whiff of pride in that, isn't there, Nil? I mean, by saying others don't know how to give, I've elevated myself a bit, haven't I!"
I noticed it wasn't unpleasant to hear my own name from my own lips! I replied, "I learned something from my revered grandfather. He always said, 'Keep your palms face down always, never turn them up under any circumstances.' Now if you want to call this pride, go ahead! What seems like pointless arrogance to ten others is self-esteem to me. That's why I simply cannot accept the idea of expecting things."
Eyes dancing with pleasure, it said, "Excellent words, words full of self-respect! But dialectical materialism does acknowledge a legitimate right to receive certain things, and it doesn't consider this anyone's charity."
Playfully, I said, "I have the right, but I don't accept... this gives me a kind of hidden joy!"
Nodding, it said, "My friend, well, if normal life is possible without accepting, then not accepting is fine too. I was talking about marginalized people. Dialectical materialism doesn't acknowledge any scope for one human to show mercy to another as a human being. That's what materialism would say."
I asked, "Tell me then, what's your own philosophy?"
Putting on quite a serious expression, it said, "Actually, if fundamental rights are protected, there's no need to accept charity at all. But what idealism says is that there's something called humanity's ever-growing needs."
Eyes twinkling with mischief, I said, "You're putting it in worldly terms! How do you see it from a psychological perspective?"
With a troubled expression, it said, "Actually quite difficult."
I said, "Fine. What about in family bonds?"
Taking off its glasses while speaking like a sage, it continued, "Actually, rights and capabilities haven't been coordinated. Whether everyone living at the same standard is actually logical—that leaves room for consideration."
I realized my friend sitting across was quite heated today. Being a bit cautious, I infused my voice with praise: "Wonderful! Your point of view is quite clear. I've really benefited from meeting you today. Now clarify something for me: can showing mercy to someone and humiliating them be considered the same thing?"
This time it lowered its voice a bit: "No, you can humiliate someone without showing them mercy. I mean, the two subjects are mutually exclusive; one doesn't depend on the other. They don't even depend on financial or social position. There's one similarity—to do either, the person it's being done to needs a kind of 'acceptance.' It's a bit difficult to do either to someone without their consent. There's also some element of emotional attachment here. It's hard to do these things to a completely detached person."
I said, "The word 'mercy' needs some correction here. Its use between two people doesn't seem acceptable to me. Mercy can primarily be a matter between creator and creation."
Opening its beautiful, intelligent deep eyes wide, it said, "This can be said from various angles. The more someone accepts subjugation, the more peace they find in thinking themselves recipients of mercy. Sufis do this. It gives a kind of self-satisfaction. Again, those who don't believe in a creator rely on their own power, take refuge in their own soul—or even if they don't, their mental strength points toward spiritual strength. It's the same thing. The soul means the person within oneself—the God of the mind."
Satisfied, I said, "Alright, so what happens between humans? At most, partnership relations can develop—like uniting in celebration and participating in the decentralization of joy."
My friend with clear thinking, as always with transparent logic, said, "What happens between humans depends on their will and beliefs."
I thought to myself, "Quite a friend I've found! We could spend several lifetimes in discussions like this!"
Breaking the silence, I said, "Have you ever seen someone celebrating joy completely alone in private? The thing is, a person who participates in everyone's joy celebrations still doesn't let anyone share in their own private joy."
I saw my friend skillfully dodged my question and continued gravely... "Yesterday I was talking about political theory, but actually, before applying this in practice, people need to become somewhat human. I think materialism looks and sounds humane, but many people strongly oppose its application. No, I'm not speaking one-sidedly—idealism gives people the unrestricted right to live as they wish and also gives continuous support to individual preferences."
I said, "Indeed! Which do you prefer yourself?"
Face lined with thought, it swayed and caught the thread: "People become accustomed to serving capital. Actually, I prefer free economy, but the problem is that free economy supports individuals in gaining unrestricted ownership of capital. Individual development is very important here; otherwise, a shameful inequality appears in society that questions human civilization itself. The matter isn't pleasant, Nil... never mind!"
I felt a subtle stab of insult—seeing the childlike curiosity in my eyes and expression, my wise friend became disappointed, and I could tell that my meager praise hadn't made any impression.
Humbly, I said, "You discuss, I'm a novice, learning."
Catching the thread again, it continued: "Free economy doesn't really acknowledge people's fundamental rights much; as guardian of its own capital, it's very ruthless."
That was good. I said, "Free economy has personality, one must say."
Like someone possessed, it started: "What did you say?"
"What you heard."
Shaking its head in a rocking motion, it said, "No no, not at all. Free economy doesn't consider individual merit much; its consideration is who owns how much capital. And for this reason, a nearly undeveloped person—I mean, uneducated—becomes like a master-level person just through the force of capital."
Gleefully, I said, "That's exactly what I said. Free economy, being a tough gamer, has its own distinct policy. Now how it makes people dance as it wishes—that's a separate matter, of course."
Opening its thought-clouded eyes like a philosophical lover, it said in a dreamy voice, "How's the sky, Nil?"
Staring like I'd been struck by lightning, I said absently, "Cloudy."
So absorbed in intense thought, it said, "Good! Cloudy, is it?"
"Mm-hmm."
As the fog of thought cleared and my friend descended again into the vast field of theoretical networks in true form... "You see, Nil, on such days two things happen:
1. People want to live a somewhat luxurious life.
2. Most people then suffer from food insecurity, which we actually don't even think about."
"Hmm," I said gravely, "just like free economy."
"Yes, exactly that. And that's why I say, until people develop to a certain degree, it would be good if the state could remain materialist—that is, a welfare state."
With a riddling tone, I said, "In the three important sectors—industry, commerce, politics—we see mostly the influence of free economy."
Drawing deep folds of worry and disappointment on its forehead, it said, "That's exactly the point! Actually, people are imprisoned in consumerist slavery. From the family itself, one acquires a sense of ownership over property. From then on, one becomes desperate to gain exclusive ownership of property, and the desire for power intensifies within them. Because using this, they can easily gradually gain exclusive ownership of capital. And other capitals become their allies to take advantage. And from here, industry-commerce-politics become the trinity of free market economy."
Eyes sparkling with curiosity, I said, "Quite interesting. Tell me about the stock market."
This seemed to amuse it a bit, and in a playful tone it said, "Here a cat-and-mouse game happens, you see! Big capital tempts small capital. Due to greed and character traits, small capital gets attracted. For a certain period, small capital—that is, shareholders—thinking they're profiting, develop a habit and keep increasing investment. Just then, big capital cleverly pretends to go bankrupt. Result: a huge population becomes destitute."
Feeling sad hearing this, I asked, "Doesn't the person who invests come to some agreement before doing so?"
"Yes, there are agreements, but those are also business agreements. Even bankruptcy is legitimate there."
Dismissively, I said, "You mean you know bankruptcy is legitimate, yet you'll still play. It's like telling a thief to steal and telling the householder to stay alert. Damn worthless monkey!"
My friend couldn't help laughing at such a comment! In the rhythm of laughter, it continued, "Yes, even though bankruptcy is legitimate, share trading continues. Because there's another charisma called goodwill. This characteristic keeps people shrouded in enchantment."
"Fine, say something about goodwill."
Like an experienced teacher, it said, "Goodwill is a special positive business characteristic. Do you know that if any bank goes bankrupt in Bangladesh, no matter how much money a depositor has deposited, they'll only get one lakh taka!"
Sighing deeply, I said, "Yes, I've heard about this."

For a while we sat in infinite silence, both of us! Like two people grieving the departure of someone especially dear! My intimate friend began muttering to himself, then caught the thread of conversation in the wind and resumed our discussion, "Anyway, what I was saying... look, it seems even nature favors free-market economics. Consider this—
today is an adversary to life for the lower and destitute classes."
I laughed cruelly and said, "Nature behaves capriciously all the time! Nature plays with compound interest, more or less."
Smiling broadly across his face, he said, "What's this, I see you're a fierce opponent of unseen forces!"
"But time has tremendous economic value, and those who possess it in abundance are also bourgeois in their own way, understand, brother!"
"Well, are time and nature on the same level? Or are they mutually contradictory?"
"On the same level."
I said, "Time is a totality of sorts."
"Nature has a constantly changing character."
"Explain that a bit more."
From his satisfied smile I could tell the subject had caught my friend's fancy. "Nature is actually everything tangible... it advances by encompassing light, water, trees, mountains. Abstraction finds no place in nature's worship.
A flower's fragrance is natural, but its invisible appeal to heart and eye it cannot express—that which creates resonance in the house of consciousness, which then travels on the folk-boat of poetry, stories, and speech to reach the next generation of humans.
Time alone carries one moment to the next, and can do so. Time also carries nature's gradual destruction to future generations as history. Nature returns to time to learn about its sorrowful past.
You could say flowers and fragrance are nature, while time becomes the bearer of abstract narratives of delighted emotions and happy sensations.
Nature deposits stories with time, time passes stories from generation to generation.
If you look closely, you'll understand that even translations of nightmares can be beautiful. On the other side of exhaustion, vitality waits. Weariness too is part of life.
Some sorrows close to suffering can also become happiness!
The body of wind will not tell you... destruction plays in hiding."

I listened spellbound to these words, as if each one was radiating light! I said, "Well, do you think time is a more powerful opponent than anything else!?"
Opening his treasury of logic, he said, "Actually time has a material explanation. When we say 'good times' we mean living life on a positive scale, and when we say 'bad times' we mean life lived in negative circumstances.
Actually, if you're in negative circumstances and want to rise from there, you'll have to turn to time. Time will help you rebuild yourself. But time will also destroy you in an instant.
The matter relates to proper use of time. The more appropriately one can use time, the greater their success. So if you do the right thing at the right time, you become unstoppable. Timing is essential for success in life. What else exists in the world whose proper use affects life so profoundly!?
Nothing, it seems. So time really has no rival."

Breaking from my absorption, I threw out the next question that had been waiting: "What's the connection between time and fate?"
In an indulgent tone he said, "That's fatalist talk.
Time doesn't change fate, effective use of time influences fate/life."
I said, "Suppose I studied thirteen hours a day following a routine, took regular tuition, finished my studies on time, but I didn't get good results in the exam! In this case, despite positive use of time and hard work, what third factor prevented the results from meeting expectations?"
My friend looked somewhat pained, lifting his wan face he continued, "Here a factor operates where humans are helpless.
Humans certainly become skilled through proper use of time, no doubt about that. But the genetic fertility of the brain plays a massive role in achieving success or the desired level.
So it's evident that many punctual, studious boys lose to rather disorganized but genetically fertile boys.
So the third factor could be called genetic fertility."

Launching my second assault to challenge my friend, I said, "Hmm, nice explanation. But I've seen many who are genetically quite fertile, but performed poorly!"
Giving a thumbs up to my second attack, he continued with a simple expression, "That's natural.
Due to arbitrary use of time, even geniuses fail miserably.
What happens here is that geniuses do quite well in short durations during running-time. But this is possible in practiced subjects.
You're talented, you have practice too, but lack comprehensiveness—meaning your volume of knowledge
is limited, in which case you might fail. Or if brain cooperation dishonors your timing, failure can come then too."
I understood now—I'd lost this round of chess, but found satisfaction nonetheless.
Lost in thought... "Dear friend, you're asking such questions... discussing these is somewhat beyond my authority. I'm
not a person of practiced life; what I've said comes from my understanding."
"Oh! Don't say that. I'm getting exactly the rational answers I want from you. Help me understand one last thing! How similar is the behavioral pattern between time and nature with free economics?"
Laughing, he said again, "Time, nature, free economics—these seem to me subjects of vast discussion.
Let me say something interesting: by destroying nature, humans have leaned on the shoulders of free economics.
Time is simply infinity.
Nature is the Creator's generosity.
Free economics is a tool to fulfill human greed.
If humans had advanced civilization through logical time, we never would have reached this insecure ecosystem we stand in today. This is my belief. The attempt by some humans to achieve supremacy too rapidly is responsible for this."

If humans had kept nature in its own place, in its natural state, and focused on developing civilization, this imbalanced situation might not have arisen. Life would have remained enjoyable in nature's embrace.
Let me say something light. The joy girls once got from playing hopscotch, they don't get even from watching hard-hitting batting now. Because life needs to maintain mystery, which humans haven't preserved. In the sixties, the joy a young man got from his beloved's unnoticed smile, he doesn't get today even while dating his girlfriend! Because humans haven't preserved their natural mystery.
Anyway, from the desire to achieve success ahead of time, humans have gained some premature success, whose crippling results corner them. They cannot maintain supremacy; instead, parallel powers emerge! The reason is that in rushing or failing to maintain dedication, intellectual property gets leaked. This leads to the emergence of multiple superpowers. But none of them worried about nature's catastrophe. As a result, nature became unbalanced due to lack of care. Calling nature cruel, a tough-gamer is nothing but displaying foolishness.
What I think next is that humans are essentially self-centered creatures. They're lovers of their own supremacy. So when nature and development are suffering from inequality, they choose an occupying strategy, breaking humanitarian walls to maintain their own supremacy. And that is free-market economics, where talent and humans are kept as slaves to capital.
Whatever the case, I think the final cruelty of turning away from the delusion of advancing oneself without giving time to time is free-market economics.
The discussion may have lost its thread somewhere—this too is my mistaken result of wanting to speak before time."

In a voice wet with gratitude I said to my revered friend, "I owe you endless debt! I've taken enough from you today, so no more questions. I won't thank you—thanks is just a word, which seems so poor and shabby beside you!"
With embarrassed eyes he said, "Oh, I just speak ordinary things, you keep much more data-based explanations to yourself.
You're giving me so much praise!!"
I said, "No, friend, I'm completely empty!"
Playfully he said, "I know, a full pitcher always calls itself empty."
Drawing it out, I said, "Then so are you!"
"Oh no! Believe me, I have no formal learning about this, it's my own personal analysis."
In an authoritative tone I said, "That's enough! Even after much study, many people can't engage in such analytical discussion.
I don't believe in rote learning. Research-based, experience-derived personal knowledge is more realistic and effective."

Smiling sweetly he said, "Come, let's wet our throats a bit now—shouting about economics and economics, no one even gave us a crumb to chew on!"