Events in one’s life are predetermined and divine in nature, and sum of all the events of one’s life can be termed as ‘destiny’. The divine importance of ‘destiny’ cannot be ignored, but it’s also unjust to associate all the failures with life. Failure is infact nothing more that that of absence of ‘success’. Any success is the product of opportunity, management and execution of this managed opportuinity.
And where there is absence of success, it means any of the components of ‘success’ is missing. Let’s take the opportunity constant (as it is divine). Management can be effective and the execution can be positive if it is ‘good’ and can be defective and execution can be ‘negative’ if management is ‘bad’. In a nut shell, we can say that success depends on how effectively one manages an opportunity, or how effectively an event is handled, or how positively it is executed.
Now when people label any failure as ‘destiny’, it is not a rational behaviour, instead it slows down the enthausiams of an individual. One should keep in mind that only ‘events’ are predetermined, not the ‘way’ one selects to handle those events. Success and failure partially depend on the management capacity of an individual. For instance a village gets flooded and damaged; this event is predetermined or divine. But after the disaster, how effectively the villagers manage the available resources for their survival is their effort which will lead them towards either to success or failure.
Highlighting ‘management’ to this much extent doesn’t mean to ignore the ‘destiny’ at all, but it’s to maintain the difference between two. This difference makes one to understand the importance of both ‘management’ and ‘destiny’, and not to label any failure with wrong title.
Filed under: Off Topic |