So what is it that makes people guilty? Doing things that others don’t want them to do? Or doing things that they themselves consider wrong? Is guilt scientific, religious, social or moral in nature? Is guilt a good penance for a wrong deed? The notion of survivors guilt exists amongst us; when then is nothing morally, religiously or socially wrong in surviving…
I hate the notion of guilt, because frankly I seem to be an easy prey to it. It is my worst curse and darkest blessing, and defines quite a few decisions I take in life… and it is most definitely one of the most twisted notions I have come across.
So what makes us guilty people? Why do we seem to want it to lead ourselves to right decisions? And if unwanted, why are we at some point or the other plagued by it. Freud’s notion of religion stems from sexual guilt. He spoke of a time when the children of a family kill their father in order to possess their mother. But once the father is dead they seem to not be able to choose the worthiest. The guilt of killing their father brings them to worship a figure close to that. Thus, they erect a totem. From this later stemmed laws and later gave rise to religion…
So what defines your guilt? Breaking a heart or lying to someone’s face? Knowingly hurting someone or letting people down? Does something tickle inside of you… if it does, and if this is a governing factor in the decisions you make, then you ought to be me… people who know me constantly try to challenge this notion. Many do not possess guilt in a generous bulk like me. They say that it is a sure shot way to be taken advantage of. Their arguments are quite sane; makes me ask the question- would I have been a better or a worse person sans this feeling? Would it have made me sure of my own decisions or would it have made me insensitive to others. Would there be freedom or loss?
In the book ‘The Difficulty of Being Good’, the question of Dharma is raised in a similar manner with episodes taken from the Mahabharata, in terms of what one 'ought to do'. Though,once you read between the lines, it seems that even the ancients were confused by their definition of Dharma. They debate between Dharma as ones duty and Dharma as what is logically sane. The book battles with notions of whether Dharma was created by God or by wise men in order to find logical solutions to difficult problems. Ideally, the absence of Dharma must produce guilt; if you cannot do what you must then it will lead to a certain inadequacy. This inadequacy is what we would call guilt. At the same time, I came across the line ‘Satisfaction of the mind is the only authority in case of conflicting alternatives.’ Which would mean that one can choose peace of mind over Dharma/ guilt…?
The questions are endless. And no conclusions have been drawn… Yet again… All I seem to understand is that guilt is everyone’s cross for the ones who believes they have to carry it. Those who don’t will shrug it off, mindless of its consequences. And that’s what creates the imbalance.
