Is it true about men ?

This piece of news may not go down well in a largely monogamous nation like India, but new research suggests that men who marry more than once tend to outlive their single-spouse counterparts, reports newscientist.com. In defence, it cites findings from a study by Virpi Lummaa, an ecologist at the University of Sheffield, UK, that says men aged over 60 from 140 countries that practiced polygamy lived on an average 12 per cent longer than monogamous men.Lummaa's findings were presented last week at the International Society for Behavioural Ecology's annual meeting in New York.

However, the study is not meant to be a validation of polygamy as much as it set out to answer the question why men, and women, live so long. With women it has long been considered to be a result of the grandmother effect, which makes sense if one considers that unlike most mammals, women live long past menopause. Conventional wisdom has it that spoiling grandchildren, as we know it in India, is one of the contributory factors to female longevity. Every decade since menopause gives the woman two more grandchildren to dote on.

For the male of the species, however, it seems that longevity is not about emotion but physiology, since unlike the distaff side they can reproduce well into their 60s, 70s and, thanks to the little blue pill, even into their 80s now. But Lumma and colleague Andy Russell were not sure if this was it, or if there was a grandfather effect on them as well. After considering data from 18th and 19th century Finns (who did not practice contraception and among who the Church enforced strict monogamy) the researchers gave up the notion of grandfather effect on men. Next they compared the ages of men from polygamous nations to those from monogamous ones, spreading their study across 189 countries in all. Using WHO data they ranked the nations on a scale of 1 to 4, one being totally monogamous to four being totally polygamous. To even out the nutritional and other kinks between the developed and not-so developed world they factored in the nation's GDP, average income etc. Discounting female longevity as the reason for the male's long lifespan, the study said if that were the case then both monogamous and polygamous men would live for about the same length of time.

But, the study said, fathering more children with more wives seemed to be the reason behind male longevity. In short, those who remain sexually fertile into their old age tended to live longer. Researcher Lumma herself stresses that this is not a fool-proof study. Terming the 'monogamy score' as a crude stab, she said they are working on assessing marriage patterns which may blow this finding apart. Chris Wilson, evolutionary anthropologist at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, however finds it a "valid hypothesis and good prediction". "It doesn't surprise me that men in those societies live longer than in monogamous societies where they become widowed and have nobody to care for them," he adds.

We can forgive but can we forget ?

Many people view forgiveness as an offshoot of love -- a gift given freely to those who have hurt you.

Forgiveness, however, may bring enormous benefits to the person who gives that gift, according to recent research. If you can bring yourself to forgive and forget, you are likely to enjoy lower blood pressure, a stronger immune system, and a drop in the stress hormones circulating in your blood, studies suggest. Back pain, stomach problems, and headaches may disappear. And you'll reduce the anger, bitterness, resentment, depression, and other negative emotions that accompany the failure to forgive.

Of course, forgiving is notoriously difficult. "Everyone says forgiveness is a lovely idea until they have something to forgive," said C.S. Lewis.

And forgetting may not be a realistic or desirable goal.

"Despite the familiar cliche, 'forgive and forget,' most of us find forgetting nearly impossible," says Charlotte van Oyen Witvliet, PhD, associate professor of psychology at Hope College. "Forgiveness does not involve a literal forgetting. Forgiveness involves remembering graciously. The forgiver remembers the true though painful parts, but without the embellishment of angry adjectives and adverbs that stir up contempt."

Forgiving (and Forgetting) Quells Stress

That type of angry "embellishment," as Witvliet calls it, seems to carry serious consequences. In a 2001 study, she monitored the physiological responses of 71 college students as they either dwelled on injustices done to them, or imagined themselves forgiving the offenders.

"When focused on unforgiving responses, their blood pressure surged, their heart rates increased, brow muscles tensed, and negative feelings escalated," she says. "By contrast, forgiving responses induced calmer feelings and physical responses. It appears that harboring unforgiveness comes at an emotional and a physiological cost. Cultivating forgiveness may cut these costs."

But how do we cultivate forgiveness?

Frederic Luskin, PhD, director of the Stanford University Forgiveness Project, readily admits that forgiveness, like love, can't be forced.

"You can't just will forgiveness," says Luskin, author of Forgive For Good: A Proven Prescription for Health and Happiness. "What I teach is that you can create conditions where forgiveness is more likely to occur. There are specific practices we offer that diminish hostility and self-pity, and increase positive emotions, so it becomes more likely that a genuine, heartfelt release of resentment will occur."

Is it all money that matters ?

A true story narrated by an unfortunate person. Is this the prevailing life in India for helpless people ?

LIFE AFTER DEATH – real life (rather death) experience

This is not a philosophical statement on one's life after death, this is about how my wife, Padma died in a hospital in Chennai. Whatever I have seen only in movies so far, is experienced by me. We were living in the UK for few years; our family includes me, my wife (Padma), and our 7 yr old son and 8months old daughter. My wife had a symptom of ventral hernia (slightly bulged abdomen), we had consulted General Physician and Surgeon in the UK and advice was that she needed a surgery to have a mesh to fix the problem with a few weeks rest. We were also told that this is not an emergency and it can be done anytime though earlier is good. In fact the surgeon whom we consulted in UK talked about an example of a lady having this done for 30 years of the symptom. My wife did not have any specific pain or something except a small discomfort of bulgy abdomen (like a 2 months pregnant lady) and she was in her normal routine of taking care of our children, taking our son to school, household work, etc.

We were planning for Christmas vacation in India in Dec 2007, we thought we will consult some 'good' doctors over in India and take a decision of when we will do the surgery if required and possibly felt doing in India is good because of family support. We have got a reference of Dr J S Rajkumar of Lifeline hospital and we booked an appointment to meet him.

We landed in Chennai on 14th Dec 2007 for a three weeks vacation, met Dr Rajkumar at his city hospital (Rigid hospital) in Chetput on 15th Dec 2007 (Sat) at about 730pm. We have explained him the background, shown him all the comments of UK surgeon, medical reports related to my wife pregnancy, deliveries, etc (she had delivered both our children normally). After few minutes of assessment Dr Rajkumar told us this hernia requires laparoscopic surgery and we can do this next day itself. We were little concerned initially of getting this surgery done the very next day (particularly we were still not out of jet lag and she was feeding our baby) and got convinced with the 'salesy' words given by the Doctors. To quote a comment from the Doctor "she will run in two days time and can lift two suitcases and you can return to UK as per your plan on 3rd Jan 2008"). Also Dr Rajkumar told us that he will be on travel for 3 days from 17th Dec and moreover he was teaching Post Graduates on 16th Dec about laparoscopic surgery and let us get it done on 16th Dec.

Then my wife was put into all sorts of equipments in the hospital (in the name of assessment); blood, urine, ECG, MRI and so on and the tests were conducted till about 11pm on 15th Dec. In fact they have opened the labs after closing hours and got the test done and handed over the test results to us. They had some problem in the ECG and we were told that ECG can be done on the next day at Lifeline hospital.

We were asked to report to Rigid hospital at 5am in the morning. Think of it, we went our residence around midnight and my wife had rush on some food to keep compliance on the fasting 8 hrs prior to surgery. After preparing for the hospital visit that night and a couple of hours sleep (3 hrs or so) we reached Rigid hospital on 16th morning at 5am or so and from there we were transported by an 'ambulance' to Lifelife hospital in Perungudi (outskirts of Chennai).

We reached the hospital at 630am, paid some initial advance for the surgery and we were given a room. Padma went through some more basic checks like height, weight, etc. Padma was taken to the operation theatre at about 10am in the morning on 16th Dec. After the laparoscopic procedure she was moved to post operative ward at about 12 noon and I have met her in the afternoon to say a small hello when she gained consciousness. Dr Rajkumar met us on 16th Dec afternoon and he in fact congratulated me for successful surgery and said he has used proceed mesh (costly one) and advised his staff to move Padma to normal ward in the evening as she had to feed her baby. But, Padma was moved to normal ward only on 17th Dec morning, she was on IV fluids as per normal post operative procedure.

Padma started to develop some fluids in her abdomen which duty doctors / surgeons have 'rightly' observed. She was put in some series of tests on 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th – tests include multiple ultra sound, multiple CT scans, pricked her abdomen and taken fluids, she had a long tube through her nose overnight to collect fluid for tests, etc. We were told the fluid is normal after surgery and it will be alright after she passes stool, etc.

In the meanwhile Dr Rajkumar returned from his travel and seen Padma on 19th on 20th Dec evening along with other surgeons. He made an assessment and he told me that he might want to do one more laparoscopic surgery to find out what is the fluid about. He wanted to do a surgery on 20th Dec evening itself, but he could not proceed as the hospital has given solid food that afternoon – hence anaesthesia could not be given. (lack of co-ordination among departments, time lost here, may be she could have survived if they have did the surgery on 20th itself)

On 20th Dec night, fluid started oozing from Padma's abdomen stitches, after the duty Doctor's assessment she was shifted to ICU. We really did not know what complication she developed in the ICU. On 21st Dec (Friday) morning around 830am I was called in to the ICU to convey that they are going to perform a surgery and I had to sign "high risk consent", they were telling this in front of my wife (just think of a patient hearing this before the surgery). I was just shocked at that and had no options to sign whatever they wanted. I said "all the best" (my last conversation with my wife) to my wife and she was taken to Operation Theatre.

While I was discussing with the Doctors at ICU, the cashier in the hospital kept on calling me on my mobile. When I met the cashier he asked for Rs.60,000 to be paid immediately and I told him take Rs.40,000 and will give you the balance later in the day. Bang a reply came, "you have to pay the money to for me to give clearance for surgery". When I expressed my unhappiness about the comment, he insisted for me to sign a piece of paper saying that I will give the money later in the day.(What money minded, in-human attitude!)

We had no news from the hospital on their own about the surgery, I had enquired the staff nurse and visited my wife in the ICU and learnt that she had a diagnostic laparotomy (open surgery) and there was hole in the intestine which was fixed.

We have meet Dr Rajkumar at about 3:30pm on 21st Dec and understood that there was a duodenum rupture and he has fixed it, at the same time he removed the mesh which was fixed on 16th Dec. She was also paralysed and put on ventilator as she was waking up. He explained it was between life threatening and beauty so they addressed the duodenum rupture problem. What we were puzzled were, how did the rupture happen? for that explanation given were

- it could be due to ulcer. My wife had no evidence of ulcer in the past. Explanation given was 40%+ cases of ulcer is silent and there will be no symptom (I lack medical knowledge to appreciate this)

- it could be due to post operative stress (so many test post operation without any explanation of what we were doing could have created the stress on Padma is my argument)

On the same night (21st Dec) at about 930pm, I was called in to the ICU and Doctors conveyed that my wife condition is critical – her pulse is high, BP is low and they were attending to her. I insisted on talking to Dr Rajkumar immdly, but they refused to connect me to him at first and finally managed to speak to him. Dr Rajkumar came in around midnight and explained that the lungs are getting affected (shown X-ray of white patches on the lower portion of lungs) and she was the most serious patient in the whole hospital that time and they were trying their best. He also said, it will need another 12-24 hours of observation before they can say anything.

We were completely panicked and just waiting outside the ICU and praying for Padma's recovery. We had to argue with the security outside the ICU to gain access to the Doctors to know her situation (no courtesy from the security personnel, who just don't understand the situation)

At about 4:30am in the morning, my friend gained access the Doctors in the ICU and came out with the low face to tell me that Padma's condition is worsened. Again I tried to reach Dr Rajkumar and the hospital says they don't have his contact number (just can't understand how they can behave like this). Finally after some hue and cry Dr Rajkumar came on line to tell me that he is not God and don't think his visit can do any thing different. I cried, begged him to come over to give some ideas to his team to recover Padma. He came over at around 6am and said they are trying everything possible, etc; but her end came quickly.

The end came to our beloved Padma at 6:30am on 22nd Dec, throwing the entire family to rude shock and a life time sorrow. Our "LIVES AFTER DEATH" of Padma has changed for ever.

I can now think of so many questions retrospectively;

1. Why did the surgeon perform the surgery the very next day of consultancy, that too for a non-emergency one like this? (Padma had just travelled many miles, she was not even out of jet lag.) Was it for money? Was it for them to get one more sample for their post grads training?

2. Did the Doctors made proper assessment on Padma's fitness for surgery, frankly did they even had time to go through the reports, after the tests till 11pm on the previous night for next day 8am surgery (particularly when the reports were with us till 730am on the day of surgery).

3. Patient communication and counselling. Isn't it important to communicate to patient and their relatives on the development of patient condition (fluid collection started from the next day of laparoscopic)

4. Did the absence of Dr Rajkumar for three days post the first surgery is one of the reason for this disaster? Were the other Doctors not able to diagnose or take a decision? Were they waiting for Dr Rajkumar return?

5. What is the real reason for duodenum perforation? My wife never had any history of ulcer to the best of my knowledge. Why did the hospital take so much of time to react (5 days after surgery) when such a crucial thing like perforation has happened.

6. Was there any issue in the initial laparoscopic procedure which has caused the perforation?

7. Careless attitude by hospital staff? – my wife sex was recorded as "Male" initially and corrected after I told them. The staff was not even apologetic for this, he rather asked me "why didn't you inform". Can't he make out with the name Padma. Think of it, if he has changed the blood group from A+ to B+; that is it!!

8. Will anyone with basic common sense ask for high risk signature in front of the patient? I was asked to sign just minutes before surgery in front of my wife.

9. Is the hospital money minded?: They were demanding money on gun point almost.

a. Prior to the first surgery the cashier said please give Rs.30000/- more for him to give clearance for surgery

b. When my wife going for second surgery I was told by the cashier again, please give Rs.60000/- for clearance for surgery

c. The hospital charged more than what was told for initial laparoscopic, without even communicating to me increase in charges

d. The final "bill" was just on letter head, without mention of currency, invoice number, etc. I had to insist on a proper invoice later.

e. I was given to understand that they even made arguments on ambulance charges to send my wife dead body back home.!! (making money on the dead body also)

10. Why the hospital did not made me to talk to my wife when she gained consciousness after the second surgery? If not anything else, I could have held her hand. Even a criminal gets an opportunity to communicate his/her last wishes. Am I or my wife worse than?

11. FALSE reports - After all these hospital sends me false reports (on Jan 11, 2008 – three weeks after my wife's death) :

a. They had mentioned she had LSCS (caesarean section) and large scar due to LSCS. When my wife delivered both the babies normally, how does one record as caesarean and how there will be scar when there was no caesarean?

b. The hernia was mentioned "incisional hernia" – when there was no incision on her body how the hernia is categorised as incisional? It was actually ventral hernia. Don't think one can replace any term with any term just like that!

c. Most importantly, the surgery was performed on 16th Dec 2007, the report said 17th dec 2007

12. MISSING REPORTS - From the hospital records Doctors notes were missing for 16th and 17th Dec. The first report is available for 17th Dec at 8:36pm. How come there are no Doctors' notes for about 36 hours after the surgery? Isn't it fishy? Did something went wrong on the first laparoscopic procedure?

Our entire family is still mourning and trying to reconcile the fact that our Padma is no more. My 7 year old son is aware that is Mom is not there, does he understand? My 1 year old daughter is too young to know what has happened. What will her questions be in future?

My sincere advice to all is

a) Do not get carried away by advertisement / TV shows / big buildings

b) Please do not rush

c) Do your own due diligence, particularly when things are not an emergency

d) Try and understand the medical terms, do research prior

e) Please ask questions, at every stage.

f) Don't say "I can spend anything"

g) Know patient rights I am still not convinced that Padma has died after a 'simple' laparoscopic surgery?

I am deeply upset of what has happened to Padma and for what is happening to us. What I could have done (or not done) which would have prevented this. What is that we can do to prevent this in future for others!!! Please join me in making awareness to others. While India is trying to woo many international Customers in the name of 'medical tourism'; first let the authorities make regulation on the health care system and take care of Indian people first.

Our medical system must understand the differences between MEDICINE – TREATMENT and HEALTHCARE. What we get most of the time is medicine for the symptom while we need healthcare.

Do they all do what they all say ?

It's only natural to think a person's attitudes and behaviours are directly related. If someone says, while truly believing it, that they're not a racist, you'd expect them to behave consistently with that statement. Despite this, psychologists have found that the link between a person's attitudes and their behaviours is not always that strong. In fact people have a nasty habit of saying one thing then doing the opposite, even with the best of intentions.

You see it all the time. People say they're worried about global warming and yet they drive around in a big gas guzzler. They say that money isn't their God, yet they work all the hours. They say they want to be fit but they don't do any exercise.

The discovery of the extent of people's blatant hypocrisy goes back to 1930s America and the work of a Stanford sociology professor, Richard LaPiere. In the early 30s he was on a tour across California with some close friends who happened to be Chinese. LaPiere was worried that they would encounter problems finding welcoming restaurants and hotels because of his Chinese friends.

At that time in the US there had been lots of stories in the media about how prejudiced people were against Chinese people. LaPiere and his friends were, therefore, pleasantly surprised to find that out of the 128 restaurants and hotels they visited, all but one served them courteously. Nowadays the fact that one place refused to serve them would rightly be considered an outrage - but those were different times.

So it sounds like a happy ending: perhaps the papers had just exaggerated people's negative attitudes towards Chinese people? But when LaPiere got home he started to wonder why there was such a gap between what the newspapers were reporting about people's attitudes and their actual behaviour. To check this out he decided to send out a questionnaire to the restaurants and hotels they had visited along with other similar places in the area (LaPiere, 1934).

The questionnaire asked the owners about their attitudes, with the most important question being: "Will you accept members of the Chinese race in your establishment?" The answers they could give were:

* Yes.
* No.
* Depends upon the circumstances.
Incredibly 90% of respondents answered, no, they wouldn't accept members of the Chinese race into their establishments. Imagine LaPiere's surprise when he looked at the results. People genuinely did say one thing and do the complete reverse. They didn't even select 'it depends'. What on Earth was going on?

LaPiere himself argued that the problem lay in the questionnaire. The questions themselves cannot represent reality in all its confusing glory. What probably happened when people were asked if they accept Chinese people was that they conjured up a highly prejudiced view of the Chinese which bore little relation with what they were presented with in reality.

Here was a polite, well-dressed, well-off couple in the company of a Stanford University professor. Not the rude, job-stealing, yobbish stereotype they had in mind when they answered the questionnaire.

This study has actually been subsequently criticised for all sorts of reasons. Nevertheless its main finding - that people don't do what they say they will in many situations - has been backed up by countless later studies, although in more sophisticated fashion. The question is: why?

Many psychologists effectively agree with LaPiere that it all depends on how you ask the questions and what stereotypes people are currently imagining when they give their answers. In some ways an attitude is like a snapshot of the prejudices the respondent has available to memory just at the moment they are questioned.

This has led to a whole raft of studies and theories searching for connections between people's attitudes and their behaviour. Many a lengthy tome has been dedicated to explaining the divergence. Some of the factors that have been found important are:

* Social norms.
* Accessibility of the attitude.
* Perceived control over behaviour.


Despite these findings, the picture is extremely complicated and frustratingly inconclusive. Perhaps as a result interest in this area has been waning amongst psychologists. The exact way in which people's attitudes and behaviour are connected remains a mystery. All we can say with certainty is that people are frequently extremely inconsistent.

The Mind and the Money !

Studies show that people inhabit two separate worlds - the social and the financial - and depending on which one is activated, their thoughts and behaviour can change dramatically.

I received a rude awakening about the separation between financial and social worlds a few years ago when I moved flat. A friend agreed to help me move all my stuff across town in the back of a van I'd hired. It took much longer than I'd expected - we were still unloading at midnight - and we were both exhausted by the end.

never discussed money beforehand but, after a long day's work, I thought it only fair I give the guy some cash for his efforts. Not only that, it had taken so long I wanted to use the money as a way of apologising. Strangely, though, he seemed unimpressed with it, even though I thought I'd been quite generous. It was obvious I'd really offended him but it wasn't until later that I realised what had been going on.

He had been operating in the social world - he thought he'd been helping me out as a friend. My paying him for his time signalled that I didn't see our relationship as primarily operating in social terms, but rather in financial, market-based terms. This wasn't what I'd intended at all - I had grossly misread the situation.

When money doesn't motivate

This chasm between our social and financial worlds has been explored in two recent studies that uncover fascinating ways in which money affects our thoughts and behaviour. In the first, participants were subjected to one of social scientists' favourite ruses: the apparently pointless task. They were simply asked to drag a circle across a computer screen as many times as they could in five minutes (Heyman & Ariely, 2004).

The experiment compared three different groups in which the payment for this mind-numbing task was as follows:

1. Given $5 for participating.
2. Given 50 cents for participating.
3. Asked to participate 'as a favour'.

When the researchers looked at how many circles each group, on average, had dragged across the screen, sure enough money was a motivator. Those paid $5 averaged 159 circles into the box, while those paid 50 cents only dragged 101 circles. So far, so obvious. But the interesting result comes with those who were asked to participate 'as a favour'. This group dragged an average of 168 circles into the box. That means the group asked to participate as a favour did about the same amount of 'work' as those paid $5. Why?

Professors Heyman and Ariely argue that people have a mental split between their social and financial worlds. Different rules apply depending on whether people are trading in hard currency, contracts and delivery dates; or, alternatively, in friendships, trust or other social connections.

When the value of a gift doesn't matter

To see how different the rules are in the two worlds, have a look at a second experiment carried out by Heyman and Ariely (2004). Again this involved the circle dragging task, but this time the experimenters wanted to look at the effects of different types of gifts on how hard people would work.

With gifts we move from the financial world back to the social world. The question is: do people work harder if the gift is bigger? In this experiment there were three conditions where participants were given:

1. Godiva chocolates (worth about $5).
2. A snickers bar (worth about 50 cents).
3. Nothing but asked to participate 'as a favour'.

This time there was no statistical difference between the groups - each dragged about the same number of circles: all three groups averages were in the 160s. This shows that in the social world, thank-you gifts don't need to be commensurate with the task performed. Whereas in the financial world, you only get what you pay for.

Just flipping from a 'payment' of 50 cents to a 'gift' of a snickers bar is enough to start people thinking socially, rather than financially. As a result people were more motivated by a gift of worth 50 cents than they were by 50 cents in cash.

Money makes us less socially-minded

It's not just in motivation to perform tasks that money has important effects, it's also in how we behave socially. In the second study, Professor Kathleen Vohs from the University of Minnesota and colleagues wanted to see how people's behaviour changed when they were subliminally primed to think about money (Vohs, Mead & Goode, 2006).

Professor Vohs and colleagues actually carried out seven separate experiments but they all followed the same pattern. First participants were unconsciously prompted to think about money in some way, then some aspect of their behaviour was measured.

In one experiment, for example, participants had to unscramble phrases, some of which involved money, and others not. On the way out of the lab, participants were told that the University student fund was collecting, and there was a box outside for them to donate if they liked. The results showed that those who had been subconsciously prompted to think about money donated less.

These results were repeated in the six other scenarios, where people reminded about money, compared to others, were more likely to:

* Believe others should be more self-sufficient.
* Offer other people who need it less help.
* Try to complete a task on their own, waiting longer to ask other people for help.

This study shows how easily people move from thinking socially to thinking financially with the result that they focus mainly on themselves and their own needs. The effects of even these subtle unconscious reminders about money are enough to change people's behaviour quite drastically.

In just the same way, economics students - who presumably spend a lot of time thinking about money - have been shown to act more selfishly than students of other disciplines (Frank et al., 1993). It doesn't take much of a mental leap to conclude that people who work in jobs which continually remind them about money will, on average, be more self-focussed than others.

Social versus financial

So, whether we realise it or not, we simultaneously inhabit two completely different worlds. In the social world we are more likely to help people out just because they ask and because it makes us feel good. In the financial world, however, it's all a matter of contracts, payments and let the 'buyer beware' - in this world you only get what you pay for, and sometimes not even that.

Being aware of when, and if, we're moving between these two worlds can help us negotiate each more easily. Certainly I now realise that when I moved flat I would have been much better off giving my friend a gift, rather than money. Because sometimes money just pushes all the wrong buttons.

பெற்றோர்களே நடமாடும் தெய்வங்கள் !

என்னிடம் இருந்த ஒரு இதயத்தையும் பறித்துக் கொண்டது காதல்!
எனக்காக ஒரு இதயத்தையே பரிசளித்தது நட்பு!
கஷ்டங்களில் யோசித்தது காதல்!
யோசிக்காமல் கைகொடுத்தது நட்பு!
துயரங்களை நோக்கி இழுத்துச்சென்றது காதல்!
உயரங்ளை நோக்கி அழைத்துச் சென்றது நட்பு!
கட்டுப்பாடுகளை தளர்த்த முயற்சித்தது காதல்!
கடமைகளை உணர்த்த முயற்சித்தது நட்பு!
என் இலட்சியங்களை கனவாக்கியது காதல்!
என் கனவுகளை இலட்சியமாக்கியது நட்பு!

காயம் தரும் காதல் வேண்டாம்!
நன்மை தரும் நட்பு மட்டும் போதும்
என்று யோசித்துக்கொண்டிருந்த வேளையில்
காதல் தொலைந்து காதலியும் மறைந்தாள்
நட்ப்பை மறந்து நண்பனும் வெகு தூரமாய் ஒதுங்கி விட்டான்
உடன் பிறப்புகளும் இரத்த சொந்தங்களும்
ஈன்றெடுத்த அன்னையும் ஞானம் கொடுத்த தந்தையும்
வியக்கவைக்கும் இவ்வுலகில் இல்லையெனில்
எனக்கென்ற வாழ்வும் எனக்குள் இருக்கும் மூச்சும்
தேவை இல்லாத விஷியங்களாக உருவெடுத்து
இயற்கையுடன் ஒன்றுடுன் ஒன்றாய் கலந்து
உணர்ச்சிகளுக்கு கட்டுப்பட்டு உயிரை இழந்த
ஒரு மாமிச பிண்டமாய் பிறராலும் சுட்டிக்காட்ட பட்டிருப்பேன்
தாய் தந்தை செய்த புண்ணியம்
என்னை கை கொடுத்து காத்தது
அவர்களுக்கு என் பணிவும் அன்பும் கலந்த
மரியாதையுடைய வணக்கங்கள்
அவர்களுக்கு பாத பூஜை செய்வதை விட
இவ்வுலகில் சிறந்த செயல் இன்னும்
என் கண்களுக்கு தெரியவில்லை !!!

Tips to Get over a Friend's Betrayal ?

It can be hard making friends, and even harder to trust them. It's very hard to find someone who really loves you and cares about you. Ideally a friend is a person who offers love and respect and will never leave or betray you. Don't lose a good friend. It's very hard to find a friend who will stay and they can be easy to lose. If you find yourself in a situation where a friend has seemingly betrayed you, follow these steps.

#1 Determine if the whole thing was a misunderstanding. It's easy to get emotional (positive or negative) with friends and you may have rushed to conclusions. Make sure they really have done something wrong, and, if they have, find if they are apologetic.

#2 Keep things in perspective. The whole situation may not be as bad as you think. This will make apologies and forgiveness easier to obtain.

#3 Be willing to forgive despite your anger. Forgive them for not keeping your trust and not knowing how to treat friends. You may need to forgive them, even if they are not sorry for what they did. This is key to getting past your anger towards them and not harboring grudges.

#4 Consider whether or not you want to maintain a friendly relationship with the person. Many times, a friend that betrays once will do it again. But this is also dependent on the situation and the person.

* If you find that you no longer want to be friends with this person, sever all ties with them. You don't have to be mean about it. Assuming you followed step 1, they already probably know that you are upset with them. This will make ending your friendship easier.

* If you find that you want to maintain your friendship, make sure the other person understand that you feel they did something wrong and you have forgiven them and want to continue being friends -- even if they aren't remorseful.

#5 Try to relax and take some time alone. Meditate, shop, dance, do whatever you have to do to make yourself happy. You are more likely to find a worthwhile solution while doing something you enjoy.

Tips

Follow your instincts and past experiences when it comes to trusting people. There are, obviously, some people you can never trust and some people you can.
If necessary, withhold some parts of yourself so you are not completely open to people. This is a tip of prevention, so you won't have to go through the trauma of betrayal.

Warnings

Human beings are sociable by nature. You cannot live your life without friends, so be very careful not to alienate all of your friends over a simple squabble.