I used to like circles: There was a centre, a circumference, nothing sharp that would stick out and poke.
I was wrong. Circles hurt.
You move from the centre towards a point, you travel through a bend; it can get heady but you are curving along the route, seeing things from a different perspective…you don’t know what comes next; there is adventure, surprise, trepidation and the sheer joy of being unable to comprehend the next step.
It doesn’t last. The centre remains the same, the circumference too may not have changed. You end where you started. All you have discovered are too many bends.
I think I will go in for squares that take you long from one place to another and, even if there is a sharp turn, the journey is a straight line. You can move away to extend yourself to a rectangle. Or take a risk and reach a peak to make a triangle. At least there is clarity of height and depth; of ecstasy and agony.
Circles deceive with their moon-faced innocence. Circles look like they won’t cause pain. But have you been hit by a soccer ball?
And are circles really complete? No. Peel an orange. What you find inside are separate slices. Cut open an apple; you have to discard the seeds.
You throw away what creates.
When you come round full circle, it only means something dies.
About Farzana
Connections
View all »











On Circles, Squares and Triangles
Hey Farzana,
Flipping through some of the earlier blogs, I couldnt' help noticing your troubles with circles, the pain, the hurt, the disillusionment - only to find agony and ecstacy in the symmetry of the squares and the triangles.
I couldn't help but to send you a very different take on circles and squares and trinagles.
Ancient Indian concept of Sarva Tantra Siddhanta....
Epistemological approach to harmony - which goes beyond mere acceptance or tolerance of other's view points or belief systems.
There are three approaches to acquiring knowledge:
i) the dogmatic path taken by the fundamentalists who view their particular belief systems as Perfect Squares.
ii) the more egalitarian approach is to view all belief systems as squares nestled within each other, each satisfying the attributes of a perfect square except that my square is of course the outer one. This is an approach taken by most of us in this room.
iii) The third path, the enlightened approach, is to think in terms of triangles within the Square, with each triangle having its own internal logic and consistency, each pointing to the same one Centre.
________________________________
According to the Upanishads, the quintessential repository of Eastern philosophy, there are three roads to choose from:
i) The road taken by the intolerant is to view their own belief systems as perfect circles with all others as oddly shaped imperfections.
ii) The rational approach, taken by most of us, is to see all beliefs as equally valid, each nestled in concentric circles, and each with its own structure and internal logic. Except that mine is the outer circle.
iv) The egalitarian approach views everything in terms of triangles within the circle – almost like a pizza pie, with each slice having its own ingredients, flavour, and internal consistency. Each obeying the properties of the triangle within the circle. Above all, each triangle pointing to the same centre, the one Ultimate Reality – no matter from which direction, from which faith system one undertakes the journey.