Actually they are all belongs to Hyderabad. They are all came to my brothers marriage. The Marriage had celebrated at Epurupalem (Post), Chirala (Md), Prakasam (District) Andhra Pradesh (State). They are all Very Very Best friends to my Brothers. Friends of all has different kins of mannerisms. A friend is a person capable of loving irrespective of whether he is being loved or not.
Friendship of the third kind is formed essentially on account of the pleasure the relationship is capableof giving. He is a joker. The moment he enters, you forget all your worries. You cannot but wonderwhat new joke he has got up in his sleeve to make you roar into laughter. And he never disappoints youthat way. She is cute, intelligent and charming. The very notion that she is your friend makes you feelproud. That she walks, talks and takes tea with you is enough. You are on cloud nine. The point restshere: How good is he/she in giving me pleasure--physically, emotionally, mentally andmaterialistically?Now to the question: Which of the three is good? It appears that type A is good, but it is not as usefulor joyful as the other types. Type B is good, yet it falls short of longevity and quality. Type C too is
good, but how long one enjoys only pleasure in life? How many jokes can a person take in a day? Anddoes it give the same pleasure as it gave to him in the beginning? Doesn’t he reach a saturation point, amental and emotional exhaustion? Where he would rather prefer to be left alone to himself? Wouldprefer to shed a tear inside rather than go on laughing at the follies of the world?In close observation, it would be revealed that all these type differences are not watertight
compartments. They overlap with each other. A relationship started on the basis of usefulness may alsoget elevated to the status of virtue in due course. Similarly a virtuous friendship also could soon impartusefulness and pleasure. It would be an ideal package to have all the three together. But you see myfriend, how difficult it is to form relationships?Virtue-based relationships are formed mostly during childhood, schooldays. Sometimes later, at collegedays, when we live in a state of blissful ignorance, or rather, fool’s paradise. But once one tastes the
coldness of reality and learns to conduct oneself a successful professional, the circumstance demandsone to have friendships on the basis of usefulness/pleasure. Be it sharing a cigarette or going for apicnic or deciding to invest in the same company shares together. Though I said earlier that it is capableof developing a virtue out of it in due course, mind you, it is not a virtue in itself. Virtue-basedfriendship is fantastic for this reason: it lasts till the end of this universe! Though it is disheartening torealise that most of the virtue-based relationships is formed during our young, immature (ironicallybecause we were thinking at that time that we were the most matured of the lot!), developing stage--themind then was remarkably uninhibited and the ears listened without prejudice and the tongues twisted
smoothly to the words that flew out from the bottoms of hearts--it is gladdening to know that valuebasedfriendships are also formed in a professional/political/materialistic milieu. Often less in number,it is formed, surprisingly, in a short span and lasts till eternity! That telepathic, intuitive RichardBachian understanding works out here: “You know your friend in a moment, than your acquaintances ina life time.”
So far so good about friends and friendships. . . All of a sudden, do I sound cynical a bit? Perhaps(my favourite word in defining relationships) yes! But why?20Page/friendship.htm Friendship - Article by T.RavichandranFrederick Neitzsche feels that the right kind of friendship occurs only when we realise the enemy withinand without. Hence when Aristotle said, “O friends, there are no enemies,” Neitzsche in his verycharacteristic way retorted by saying, “O enemies, there are no enemies.” While Aristotle implied thatfriends are really enemies in disguise, Neitzsche conjectured to the contrary that enemies are friends indisguise! He was contemptuous of our tendency to give only to our friends. But not to our enemies.
The reader should not confuse this notion with the Christian doctrine of ‘love thy neighbours’ or ‘if aperson slaps on your cheek, show him the other’ stuff, since for Neitzsche, “God is dead” (an interestingbut irrelevant point here, hence I defer a meandering discussion). All that Neitzsche wants to convey isthis: while one is so generous in giving to his friends, he must also learn how to give to his enemies.
Failing which, for him, there could be no friendship at all.Taking cues from Nietzsche we should not only concede the enemy in the friend but also recognise inadvance so that we may not be caught unawares and be saved of increased blood-pressure levels anddoctor bills. Our best friend is endowed with the capability of becoming our worst enemy. It is alwaysfor sure. A stranger can be an enemy but not worst enemy. Remember Brutus, for instance. We alwayssay that Caesar was so strong that he would not have died even if millions of daggers were to pierce himbut for the one dagger of betrayal that penetrated his heart and took away his last breath. That others
were interested in the death of Caesar was of no matter to the mighty emperor, but his bosom friend sawa point in it made him give up all his hope for survival. If my death would benefit Brutus, so be it,thought Caesar and died of heart-break, not of haemorrhage, we may categorically conclude.
Nevertheless, this does not always happen in Shakespearean dramas and present Hindi movies, but inreality too. A person who had this soul-bending/mending experience wisely knows that love is just anabsence of hate as day is just an absence of night. In the words of Jaques Derrida: if you want a friend,
you must wage war on him, and capable of it, capable of having a ‘best enemy.’ To be capable of thisfriendship, to be able to honour in the friend the enemy he can become, is a sign of freedom. Freedomitself. Now this is a freedom that neither tyrants not slaves know.”(1997: 282). One should be capable
of respecting the enemy, of honouring what one does not love. Incapable of such a respect, incapable ofthe freedom entailed by that respect, one could never have either friends or enemies as such. “Only a
free and respectful consciousness could ever attain to this as such, this phenomenal essence of the friendor enemy, as well as of the couple they form (ibid.).”In conclusion, recognition of enmity even when friendship is alive and kicking can give a cosmic andcomprehensive view of a relationship resulting in its intensified quality and enhanced exchange offriendly love. But leaving this aspect of friendship in the dark, will soon render a relationship arbitraryand leaves its partners in a quandary with rankling fear for continuity/discontinuity. That’s why, whenwe preserve the fond memories of our friends in the attics, refrigerators and pickle bottles of our mindsand hearts, let’s open those wicket-gates of our souls in esteem of our enemies too! And, from now on,we shall vow together and say: Welcome enemies and happy stay friends!
