Oppenheimer

Just back from seeing Oppenheimer. I don't know what I was expecting, but given all the hype around it, I was surprised.

The movie could have been shot in a drawing room, which it probably was. There's a lot of who-dun-it kind of suspense and intrigue, except that I could not figure out what was done. At random points in the movie, when two characters are talking, the music builds up to an insane crescendo, for what is, forget climax, not even a damp squib. 

The hero ultimately seems to have triumphed, but I don't know in what. 

The team that created the Bomb at Los Alamos is legendary. I think it is that awe that the Director is counting upon, for the audience to think that some epic things are happening. 

For about half an hour, just before the interval, I even slept off. 

The problem of course could be that I am not the intellectual kind. I need simple plots, some straight fights, a little bit of romance, and I am happy. I am not saying I like only Govinda movies, but Christopher Nolan may be too intellectual for me.

Wife and son were also there and they liked the movie, and as the  designated driver, I had to stay till the end. 

Perfect waste of a Monday  afternoon. Now don't ask me what I was doing watching a movie on Monday afternoon. A very good friend gifted us three IMAX gold class tickets, since he realised he had booked it at the wrong theatre. And on most Monday afternoons I am essentially doing nothing anyway.

Ruminations on a Tuesday morning

Your innermost beliefs are at variance with your speech and behaviour,  which is dictated by survival considerations. 

As a result, you suffer from severe internal conflict which warps your personality.

Society does not care if you are warped or not, so long as you talk the talk and walk the walk.

The inviolable spiritual law says that you will be at peace only if your thoughts, speech and actions are all aligned. 

Therefore, those who need to progress on the spiritual path need to distance themselves from society, family, and all such structures that being them into proximity with other people.

When you are young, a balance that is tilted more towards society and less towards spirituality seems more  rewarding and is probably essential. 

As you grow older, the balance has to shift. You need to tilt more and more towards spirituality. That is the logic behind the four "ashramas" in Indian philosophy, Brahmacharya / student life, Grihasta / fulfilment of worldly desires, Vanaprastha / giving back to society while being still in it, and Sanyasashrama / giving up everything and focusing on Moksha,  rather than Kama and Artha. Underlying the whole thing is Dharma, which one must not forsake throughout one's life.

But the template of "modern life", with its emphasis on "achievement", "wealth", and "success" keeps us trapped in the grihasta stage like a person on a hedonistic treadmill who is unable to step off. 

So, where lies the answer? How does one strike the right balance? That is an eternal question that needs to be constantly reinterpreted in line with shifting ages and times...