I was not outgoing as a child. When people used to hurt me with their bitter words I was unable to respond them thought there was not my fault. I could not speak even a word in my defense. Instead, I would like to cry lonely. I used to think myself as an odd creature that cannot be adapted to the society and its people. I tried to change myself to be adapted. But I was never able to do so.
When I happen to read a small booklet called 'Easy way to understand Marxism' then I started thinking that 'it's not me the odd one but the society; it's not me to be changed but the society'. That might be the reason I was fascinated toward Marxism too quickly. This incident took place somewhere around 1998. At the time my extreme patriotic personality was replaced by communist one. Then I started a lot of study on socialism and communism. At that time I with some of my school friends had started a child library. We collected some money from ourselves to buy books of fairy tales and child magazines. My responsibility in the library was to buy books and magazines. When I was attracted toward Marxism then I started buying books of Marxist ideology for the library. I was much excited reading such books. I was feeling proud to be called a communist. Simultaneously I was listening to the songs of communist singers which gave me the great spirit and excitement.
Thought I studied a lot about Mao's new democracy, socialism, and communism, I was too much interested in communism. I would imagine myself to be in communism. On every book, I read communism was predicted to be inevitable. Then I said to me 'if it is inevitable, why we communist need to lead a movement to achieve it? It is eventually turning into communism itself without effort'. I asked myself is that possible? On what basis communism was called inevitable? These questions led me to the deep study of the basis of communism; historical and dialectical materialism, the Marxist philosophy. Many times there were conflicts between logics on the book and my own logics. Sometimes I felt I was reading so important point that must be underlined to read again. Sometimes I felt the given logics were wrong and I wrote my own logics on the margin of the book with a pencil. Many times it took me hours just to finish reading a single page because I would argue with every single sentence. I could never start another sentence until I reach to a certain conclusion.
When I felt that the arguments with books will be too long then I no longer wrote my logics on the margin of the book but started drafting on a separate notebook.
From the notebook, the exact date of start of drafting was 31 March 2000. And on 26 February 2005, I finished a phase of writing. Then I gave some of my friends to read and make comments on my work. But no one gave me positive comments as I was expecting. But I was not worried by comments because I think I'm the one who is too much eager to know the truth of the world. That's why negative comments do not make me worry; I just hope my thoughts to be refuted by true logics and facts. Most of the comments I received was 'Law of Action and Reaction' is not any new idea to know. Everyone knows that every action creates the reaction; every reaction is a result of a certain action. This is a simple rule and no one is unaware of it. There is nothing new that can attract readers to this idea.' My reply to these comments was 'my busyness is not about attraction, but about the facts. Of course, philosophy is a simple rule that applies to every aspect of the world. Former philosophers are responsible for making the philosophy such a difficult one. Just like dialecticism. Dialecticism is attractive. When we first read about dialecticism, we are so attracted toward it and we think that it is an extraordinary thought. But actually, the field of dialecticism is limited; it can't be applied to every aspect of life. Such rule which is limited in the certain area can be attractive but they can't represent the whole world. The rule that can represent the whole world must obviously be simple and that is the 'Law of Action and Reaction'. I'm not doubtful about the philosophical idea but sometimes I feel there might need some corrections on some of my theories I presented here. I will certainly be happy if corrections were found because I'm always on the way to find the truth. The world-view presented here is the dynamic one. So the overall idea of philosophy, theory and program cannot be wrong by making corrections on some of its theory parts.
Recently I've made some corrections and also wrote two new topics. At last, I would like to thank the commenter. Comments are welcome. Anyone can agree or disagree with the idea I've presented here. That's normal and l will take it easy. I'll feel happy if this writing is simple enough for everyone to understand.
Thank You !
सानो छँदा अन्तर्मुखी स्वभावको थिएँ । मान्छेका बोली व्यवहारसँगै मेरा बोली व्यवाहारको तालमेल नमिल्दा म आफुलाई समाजमा घुल्न नसक्ने अजिव प्राणी झैं मान्थें ।
जब मैले ’मार्क्सवाद बुझ्ने सरल तरिका’ भन्ने सानो पुस्तिका पढें, त्यतिबेलादेखि मलाई लाग्यो कि अजिव म हैन, अजिव त यो समाज रहेछ । म यो समाज अनुकुल बन्ने होइन कि अब यो समाजलाई म अनुकुल बनाउनु पर्ने रहेछ । यही कारण हुनुपर्छ मलाई मार्क्सवादले छिट्टै तानेको । सायद यो २०५४/५५ साल तिरको कुरा हुनुपर्छ । त्यस अघि हिटलर जस्तो अन्धाराष्ट्रवादी म त्यसपछि कम्युनिष्ट बनें । समाजवाद र साम्यवाद सम्बन्धि धेरै धेरै किताबहरू पढ्न थालें । त्यतिबेला हामी स्कुलका केही साथीहरू मिलेर बाल पुस्तकालय खोलेका थियौं । नयाँ नयाँ किताबहरू किन्न साथीहरूबाटै पैसा संकलन गर्थ्यौं । किताब किन्ने जिम्मा मेरो थियो । बाल कथा, कविताका किताबहरूबाट सुरू गरेको हाम्रो पुस्तकालयमा त्यसपछि मेरा रोजाइ अनुसारका मार्क्सवादी किताबहरू थापिन थाले । ती किताबहरू पढेर म निकै रोमाञ्चित हुँदै गैरहेको थिएँ । म आफुलाई कम्युनिष्ट भन्न पाउँदा अति धेरै गर्वको अनुभव गर्न थालेको थिएँ । त्यसमाथि प्रगतिशील कलाकारहरूले गाएका गीतसंगीत सुन्दा झन् उर्जा थपिदिन्थ्यो ।
मैले माओको नयाँ जनवाद, त्यसपछि लागू हुने भनिएको समाजवाद र अन्त्य अनि अवश्यंभावी रूपमा व्याख्या गरिएको साम्यवादबारे धेरै पढें । मलाई नयाँ जनवाद र समाजवाद भन्दा पनि साम्यावादमा धेरै रूचि थियो । म आफूलाई साम्यवादी समाजमा रहेको कल्पना गर्थें । यस्तो समाज सक्दो छिटो बनाउनुपर्छ जस्तो लाग्थो । यसको लागि अब यस्तो किताब पढेर, सिद्धान्तहरू लेखेर समय खेर फाल्नु भन्दा पनि सजिलो र छिटो तरिकाले कसरी साम्यवादी समाज बनाउन सकिन्छ भन्ने मनमा लागिरहन्थ्यो । अर्कोतिर साम्यवाद अवश्यंभावी हो भने एक दिन त यो समाज साम्यावादी हुन करै लाग्छ नि हामीले केही गर्दा र नगर्दा के फरक पर्छ र जस्तो लाग्थ्यो । यस्तै तर्क वितर्कले मलाई अन्ततः ′साम्यवादका अधारहरू के के हुन त ? ′ भन्ने कुराहरूहरूमा डोर्यायो । अतः मैले मार्क्सवादका दार्शनिक आधार, ऐतिहासिक र द्वन्दात्मक भौतिकवादको गहिरो अध्ययन गर्ने निष्कर्ष निकालेँ । पढ्दै जाँदा कतिपय स्थानमा मेरा र किताबका तर्कहरू बाझिन थाले । कतिपय ठाउँमा एकदमै महत्वपूर्ण कुरा पढेको झैं लाग्थ्यो । पढ्दा मसँग पेन्सिल हुन्थ्यो । कयौं ठाउँमा अन्डरलाइन गरिन्थ्यो । कतै कुनै कुरा चित्त नबुझेमा किताबकै मार्जिन साइड (अक्षर नभएका खाली ठाउँ) मा मेरा आफ्ना तर्कहरू पेन्सिलले लेख्थेँ । कति ठाउँमा एक पाना मात्र पढ्न पनि घण्टौं समय लाग्थ्यो । किनकी हरेक वाक्यसँग मेरो वादविवादहरू चल्थ्यो । त्यो विवादलाई निष्कर्षमा नपुर्याएसम्म दोस्रो वाक्य पढ्न सकिंदैनथ्यो ।
यसरी वैचारीक मन्थनहरू धेरै हुन थालेपछि मैले मेरा असहमति र मेरा आफ्नै तर्कहरूलाई किताबकै खाली भागमा पेन्सिलले लेखेर मात्र नअटाउने भयो । त्यसपछि मैले खेस्रा कागजमा आफ्ना तर्कहरू लेख्न थालेँ । यो लेखाइ २०५६ साल चैत्र १८ बाट शुरू भयो । अन्ततः २०६१ फागुन १५ गते यी लेखहरूलाई एउटा व्यवस्थित रूप दिएँ र दुईचार जनालाई पढन दिएँ । तर कसैबाट पनि मैले सोचेजस्तो सकारात्मक प्रतिक्रिया पाईंन । म सत्य के हो भनेर जान्न चाहने भएकोले मलाई नकारात्मक प्रतिक्रियाहरूले कुनै दुःख पुर्याउँदैन । मात्र यति हो कि मेरा विचारहरू तथ्यहरूद्वारा खण्डन होस् भन्ने चाहन्छु । पढ्न दिएकामध्ये धेरैजनाबाट आएको टिप्पणी के थियो भने ′क्रिया र प्रतिक्रिया′ को नियम कुनै नौलो कुरा होइन, हरेक क्रियाले प्रतिकृया जन्माउँछ वा हरेक प्रतिक्रियाको लागि क्रिया आवश्यक हुन्छ भन्ने कुरा सबैलाई थाहा भएको साधारण कुरा हो । त्यसैले यसमा कुनै आकर्षण भएन । यसमा मेरो भन्नु के हो भने कुरा आकर्षणको हैन, तथ्यको हो । जसलाई हामी साधारण नियम भन्छौँ आखिर संसार त्यही साधारण नियममा आधारित रहेछ । दर्शन बुझ्न गाह्रो छैन । दर्शनलाई पूर्व विद्वानहरूले बुझ्न गाह्रो विषय बनाए, आकर्षक तर जटिल कुराहरू लेखेर । जस्तै द्वन्दवादलाई हरौं । द्वन्दवाद आकर्षक छ । पहिलोपटक द्वन्दवाद पढ्दा के के न नयाँ अनि असाधारण कुरा थाहा पाए झैँ लाग्छ तर द्वन्दवादको क्षेत्र सीमित छ । यो सबै कुरामा लागू हुँदैन, त्यसैले यो सही दर्शन हुन सक्दैन, बरु यो कुनै विषयको सिद्धान्त हुन सक्छ । यहाँ लेखेका दर्शनका कुरामा शंका नभए पनि सिद्धान्त विषयमा लेखेका केही कुरामा अझै केही खोटहरू हुन सक्छन् जस्तो लाग्छ । मेरा विचारहरूमा खोट पत्ता लाग्यो भने झन सत्य कुरा फेला पर्नाले खुशी नै हुनेछु । ′क्रिया र प्रतिक्रिया′ को यो विश्व-दृष्टिकोण चलायमान वा भनौं गतिशील (dynamic) छ । त्यसैले यसको सिद्धान्तका विषयमा सही तथ्यहरू थप्नाले वा गलत कुराहरू हटाउनाले दर्शन, सिद्धान्त र कार्यक्रमको यो समग्र विश्व-दृष्टिकोण गलत ठहर्न सक्दैन ।
भर्खरै मात्र पनि केही सम्पादन गरें, केही उदाहरणहरूलाई परिमार्जित गरें र ′इच्छाशक्ति′ र ′साम्यवाद′बारे नयाँ विषय थपेको छु । ′इच्छाशक्तिका नियमहरू′ एउटा सिद्धान्त हो तर यसले मान्छेका कार्यक्रमहरू सफल वा असफल हुनुमा भूमिका खेल्ने हुनाले यसलाई सिद्धान्तको chapter मा नराखेर कार्यक्रमको chapter मा राखेको छु । अन्त्यमा यसलार्इ पढेर प्रतिकृया दिनुहुनेहरूप्रति कृतज्ञता जनाउँछु । यसमा प्रस्तुत विचारसँग जो कोही पनि सहमत वा असहमत हुन सक्छन्, जुन स्वाभाविक कुरा हो र यसलाई सामान्य रूपमा लिनेछु । मुख्य कुरा मैले आफ्ना विचारहरूलाई सबैले बुझ्नसक्ने गरी स्पष्टसँग राख्न सकेको रहेछु भने आफूलाई सफल मान्नेछु ।
-निर्मल
No comments:
Post a Comment